Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS · CHAPTER 2. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS · Part 2. Time Limits on Specific Kinds of Actions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209 (2026)

Actions Against Local Government Or Local Government Official

✓ 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 27
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 27-2-209 Actions against local government or local government official

TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS

CHAPTER 2. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

Part 2. Time Limits on Specific Kinds of Actions

Actions Against Local Government Or Local Government Official

27-2-209. Actions against local government or local government official. (1) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action against a sheriff, coroner, or constable upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in that person's official capacity and in virtue of that person's office or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution, is within 3 years, except that this subsection does not apply to an action for an escape.

(2) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action against a sheriff or other officer for the escape of a prisoner arrested or imprisoned on civil process is within 1 year.

(3) Actions for claims against a county that have been rejected by the county commissioners must be commenced within 6 months after the first rejection.

(4) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action against a municipality for damages or injuries to property caused by a mob or riot is within 1 year.

(5) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action against a municipality arising from a decision of the municipality relating to a land use, construction, or development project is 6 months from the date of the written decision.

History: Ap. p. Sec. 514, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 2, p. 157, L. 1901; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 128, L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6447, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9031, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 339; re-en. Sec. 9031, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 516, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 1, p. 144, L. 1899; re-en. Sec. 6450, Rev. C. 1907; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 47, L. 1917; re-en. Sec. 9034, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 340; re-en. Sec. 9034, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2608, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 517, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 1, p. 144, L. 1899; re-en. Sec. 6450a, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9035, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 341, 342; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 27, L. 1933; re-en. Sec. 9035, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2609, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 510, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6443, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 335; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2601, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2601(part), 93-2605(1), 93-2608(part), 93-2609(2); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 412, L. 2005.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Est. of Woody ex rel. Woody v. Big Horn Cnty., 2016 MT 180, 376 P.3d 127.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Woody ex rel. Woody v. Big Horn Cnty., 2016 MT 180, 376 P.3d 127. · cites it 18× “” Section 27-2-209(3), MCA. ¶11 The District Court interpreted and analyzed §§ 2-9-301 and 27-2-209(3), MCA, and our decisions in Rouse and Stratemeyer to conclude that the Estate’s claim letter to the County “did not toll the limitations period for the claims asserted in the…”
Rouse v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 817 P.2d 690 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 24× “Rouse argues that § 27-2-209, MCA, a three year statute of limitations concerning liability incurred by a sheriff, coroner, or constable, provides the applicable limitation period in this case.”
Turner v. City of Dillon, 2020 MT 83, 461 P.3d 122. · cites it 11× “” Alternatively, Turner argues that his case is virtually identical to Estate of Woody, wherein we held that the Plaintiff’s notice of claim filed with Big Horn County tolled the limitation period for filing an action until the county’s rejection of the claim, after which the…”
State v. Placzkiewicz, 2001 MT 254, 36 P.3d 934. · cites it 2× “tort actions for general and personal injury (§ 27-2-204, MCA); actions for medical malpractice (§ 27-2-205, MCA); actions for legal malpractice (§ 27-2-206, MCA); actions for injuries involving property (§ 27-2-207, MCA); actions for damages arising out of work on improvements…”
Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish, 2016 MT 254, 383 P.3d 735. · cites it 2× “The District Court dismissed the *144 2010 complaint on the basis of lack of service under Rule 4 and on the ground the statute of limitations for Appellants’ claims, set forth in § 27-2-209(5), MCA, would bar any re-filed action.”
Nelson v. Mayor of Billings, 2010 MT 13N. · cites it 7× “The City moved to dismiss the petition on March 2, 2009, on the grounds that Nelson had exceeded the six-month statute of limitations period stipulated by § 27-2-209(5), MCA. The District Court found that Nelson had in fact exceeded the six- month statute of limitations by…”
Sugg, No. 4:24-cv-00070 (D. Mont. Mar. 3, 2026). · cites it 15× “§ 1983 claims Valley County argues Sugg’s § 1983 claims are similarly prohibited by the application of Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209 (3) because § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s statute of limitations.”
Sugg v. Boyer, No. 4:24-cv-00070 (D. Mont. Aug. 7, 2025). · cites it 14× “” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209 (3). “[W]hen a plaintiff timely files a claim against a county, the period of limitations is tolled and the six month limitation period for filing in district court does not begin to run until the claimant receives notice of the county’s denial of…”
Est. of Michael Ostby v. Yellowstone Cnty., No. 1:17-cv-00124 (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2020). · cites it 13× “§ 27-2-209(3), MCA; Woody, J 19, citing Rouse, 250 Mont.”
Beck v. City of Whitefish, No. 9:22-cv-00044 (D. Mont. Sept. 29, 2023). · cites it 4× “The City further argues the Plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of the class because they are barred by the six month statute of limitations for claims “against a municipality arising from a decision of the municipality relating to land use, construction, or development.”
Raugust v. Abbey, No. 6:20-cv-00009 (D. Mont. July 8, 2020). · cites it 4× “So long as Raugust presented his claim to Sanders County before his limitations period expired, his statute of limitations was tolled until denied by Sanders County under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209 (3). See Estate of Woody v.”
Palmer v. Quinn, 2013 MT 378N. · cites it 3× “Section 27-2-209(5), MCA. ¶11 On appeal, Palmer argues that the ten-year statute of repose, § 27-2-208, MCA, should apply to her claims.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209(1): 1 case
Rouse v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 817 P.2d 690 (Mont. 1991). “Rouse argues that § 27-2-209, MCA, a three year statute of limitations concerning liability incurred by a sheriff, coroner, or constable, provides the applicable limitation period in this case.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209(3): 7 cases
Est. of Woody ex rel. Woody v. Big Horn Cnty., 2016 MT 180, 376 P.3d 127. “” Section 27-2-209(3), MCA. ¶11 The District Court interpreted and analyzed §§ 2-9-301 and 27-2-209(3), MCA, and our decisions in Rouse and Stratemeyer to conclude that the Estate’s claim letter to the County “did not toll the limitations period for the claims asserted in the…”
Turner v. City of Dillon, 2020 MT 83, 461 P.3d 122. “” Alternatively, Turner argues that his case is virtually identical to Estate of Woody, wherein we held that the Plaintiff’s notice of claim filed with Big Horn County tolled the limitation period for filing an action until the county’s rejection of the claim, after which the…”
Rouse v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 817 P.2d 690 (Mont. 1991). “Rouse argues that § 27-2-209, MCA, a three year statute of limitations concerning liability incurred by a sheriff, coroner, or constable, provides the applicable limitation period in this case.”
Est. of Michael Ostby v. Yellowstone Cnty., No. 1:17-cv-00124 (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2020). “§ 27-2-209(3), MCA; Woody, J 19, citing Rouse, 250 Mont.”
Sugg, No. 4:24-cv-00070 (D. Mont. Mar. 3, 2026). “§ 1983 claims Valley County argues Sugg’s § 1983 claims are similarly prohibited by the application of Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209 (3) because § 1983 claims are subject to the forum state’s statute of limitations.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-209(5): 3 cases
Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish, 2016 MT 254, 383 P.3d 735. “The District Court dismissed the *144 2010 complaint on the basis of lack of service under Rule 4 and on the ground the statute of limitations for Appellants’ claims, set forth in § 27-2-209(5), MCA, would bar any re-filed action.”
Nelson v. Mayor of Billings, 2010 MT 13N. “The City moved to dismiss the petition on March 2, 2009, on the grounds that Nelson had exceeded the six-month statute of limitations period stipulated by § 27-2-209(5), MCA. The District Court found that Nelson had in fact exceeded the six- month statute of limitations by…”
Palmer v. Quinn, 2013 MT 378N. “Section 27-2-209(5), MCA. ¶11 On appeal, Palmer argues that the ten-year statute of repose, § 27-2-208, MCA, should apply to her claims.”
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.