Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 26. EVIDENCE · CHAPTER 3. EFFECT OF FORMER JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS · Part 2. Effect of Specific Kinds of Judicial Records
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-3-201 (2026)

Effect Of Judgment Or Final Order -- When Conclusive

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 26
  3. CHAPTER 3
  4. Part 2
  5. 26-3-201 Effect of judgment or final order -- when conclusive

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 3. EFFECT OF FORMER JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Part 2. Effect of Specific Kinds of Judicial Records

Effect Of Judgment Or Final Order -- When Conclusive

26-3-201. Effect of judgment or final order -- when conclusive. The effect of a judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding before a court or judge of this state or of the United States having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or order is as follows:

(1) In case of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will or the administration of the estate of a decedent, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or relation of a particular person, the judgment or order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition or relation of the person.

(2) In other cases, the judgment or order is, in respect to the matter directly adjudged, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing under the same title and in the same capacity, provided they have notice, actual or constructive, of the pendency of the action or proceeding.

History: En. Sec. 3196, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 7914, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10558, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1908; re-en. Sec. 10558, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-1001-20.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2012 · leading case: Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins., 2012 MT 184, 285 P.3d 494.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins., 2012 MT 184, 285 P.3d 494. · cites it 5× “The District Court agreed with Metropolitan that Brilz was essentially lodging “a collateral attack” on the federal courts’ judgment, contrary to § 26-3-201, MCA. 3 The court also reasoned that Brilz was barred by principles of issue preclusion from relitigating the question…”
Blackwell v. Lurie, 943 P.2d 1318 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 9× “Blackwell argues that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on show cause order were binding on the District Court under § 26-3-201, MCA, and by the language of the agreements themselves.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-3-201(2): 2 cases
Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins., 2012 MT 184, 285 P.3d 494. “The District Court agreed with Metropolitan that Brilz was essentially lodging “a collateral attack” on the federal courts’ judgment, contrary to § 26-3-201, MCA. 3 The court also reasoned that Brilz was barred by principles of issue preclusion from relitigating the question…”
Blackwell v. Lurie, 943 P.2d 1318 (Mont. 1997). “Blackwell argues that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on show cause order were binding on the District Court under § 26-3-201, MCA, and by the language of the agreements themselves.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.