Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-204 (2026)

Powers And Duties Of Court On Appeals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 3. JUDICIARY, COURTS

CHAPTER 2. SUPREME COURT

Part 2. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Powers And Duties Of Court On Appeals

3-2-204. Powers and duties of court on appeals. (1) The supreme court may affirm, reverse, or modify any judgment or order appealed from and may direct the proper judgment or order to be entered or direct a new trial or further proceedings to be had.

(2) The decision of the court must be given in writing, and a syllabus thereof must be prepared by the court and filed with the opinion.

(3) In giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the court must pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case presented upon such appeal and necessary to the final determination of the case.

(4) Its judgment in appealed cases must be remitted to the court from which the appeal was taken.

(5) In equity cases and in matters and proceedings of an equitable nature, the supreme court shall review all questions of fact arising upon the evidence presented in the record, whether the same be presented by specifications of particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient or not, and determine the same, as well as questions of law, unless for good cause a new trial or the taking of further evidence in the court below be ordered. Nothing herein shall be construed to abridge in any manner the powers of the supreme court in other cases.

History: En. Ch. 1, Ex. L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6253, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8805, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 53; re-en. Sec. 8805, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-216.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 96 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 16× “] 32 See Section 3-2-204, MCA (entitling us to “affirm, reverse, or modify any judgment or order appealed from[.”

Volk v. Goeser, 2016 MT 61 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 8× “Although the District Court’s decision was rendered pursuant to summary judgment in a case of equity, see § 3-2-204, MCA, the decision of whether a constructive trust should be created; what, if anything, should be done for violation of an economic restraining order in a…”

Harry v. Elderkin, 637 P.2d 809 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 12× “In section 3-2-204, MCA, defining the power of the Supreme Court, it is stated: "(3) In giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the court must pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case presented upon such appeal and necessary to the final…”

Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 6× “, disclosure when Kailey was not retained in preparation for litigation? ¶ 40 The District Court prevented Missoula County traffic supervisor Ken Kailey (Kailey) *786 from giving expert testimony for Plaintiffs because the Faulconbridges did not name him as an expert in response…”

Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., 804 P.2d 359 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 6× “This Court's duty upon review of equity cases and proceedings of an equitable nature is to review all questions of fact arising upon the evidence presented in the record, whether the evidence is alleged to be insufficient or not, and to determine the same, as well as questions…”

Meridian Minerals Co. v. Nicor Minerals, Inc., 742 P.2d 456 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 6× “Meridian cites Section 3-2-204(5), MCA, as the standard of review supporting its position that equity regards the totality of the circumstances, and will permit piercing of the veil without imposition of strict checklists: “In equity cases and in matters and proceedings of an…”

Maulding v. Hardman, 847 P.2d 292 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 6× “However, it is within this Court's power under Section 3-2-204, MCA, to consider any trial court proceedings that affect the parties' substantial rights, and we may for good cause remand this case for further proceedings.”

Davis v. Westphal, 2017 MT 276 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 2× “6(3)(e) and § 3-2-204(5), MCA (mandatory review of all questions of fact and questions of law implicated on record in equity cases).”

Shimsky v. Valley Credit Union, 676 P.2d 1308 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 6× “" Section 3-2-204(5), MCA. The peculiar circumstances of this appeal show the need for such a broad standard; the legal theory primarily relied on below by appellant has been conceded on appeal, and the issues presented for review relate to a legal theory which was barely…”

In Re the Est. of McDermott, 2002 MT 164 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 4× “We hold that the District Court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason when it consolidated the two matters. ISSUE 2 ¶ 21 Did the District Court err when it ruled that the 1973 transaction concerning Leo E.”

Trs. of Washington — Idaho — Montana Carpenters — Employers Ret. Trust Fund v. Galleria P'ship, 780 P.2d 608 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 6× “A mortgage foreclosure proceedings, however, is in the equity jurisdiction of the courts. This Court is enjoined by statute, in equity cases and in matters or proceedings of an equitable nature, to review all questions of fact arising on the evidence presented in the record, and…”

State v. Clark, 2008 MT 391 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 6× “*989 ¶ 58 Section 3-2-204, MCA, provides that this Court may affirm, reverse or modify any judgment or order from which an appeal is taken or direct "further proceedings to be had.”

Show all 96 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-204(1) — 6 cases

Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins., 2013 MT 244 (Mont. 2013). “] 32 See Section 3-2-204, MCA (entitling us to “affirm, reverse, or modify any judgment or order appealed from[.”

State Ex Rel. Olson v. Dist. Court of the Nineteenth Jud. Dist., 602 P.2d 1002 (Mont. 1979).

In Re the Marriage of Sarsfield, 695 P.2d 473 (Mont. 1985).

Herbert v. Shield Arms, 2025 MT 199 (Mont. 2025).

Noland v. State, 2025 MT 294 (Mont. 2025).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-204(3) — 7 cases

Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198 (Mont. 2006). “, disclosure when Kailey was not retained in preparation for litigation? ¶ 40 The District Court prevented Missoula County traffic supervisor Ken Kailey (Kailey) *786 from giving expert testimony for Plaintiffs because the Faulconbridges did not name him as an expert in response…”

Harry v. Elderkin, 637 P.2d 809 (Mont. 1981). “In section 3-2-204, MCA, defining the power of the Supreme Court, it is stated: "(3) In giving its decision, if a new trial be granted, the court must pass upon and determine all the questions of law involved in the case presented upon such appeal and necessary to the final…”

Folsom v. Montana Pub. Employees' Ass'n, 400 P.3d 706 (Mont. 2017).

Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 2003 MT 47 (Mont. 2003).

Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 768 P.2d 850 (Mont. 1989).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 3-2-204(5) — 65 cases

Volk v. Goeser, 2016 MT 61 (Mont. 2016). “Although the District Court’s decision was rendered pursuant to summary judgment in a case of equity, see § 3-2-204, MCA, the decision of whether a constructive trust should be created; what, if anything, should be done for violation of an economic restraining order in a…”

Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., 804 P.2d 359 (Mont. 1990). “This Court's duty upon review of equity cases and proceedings of an equitable nature is to review all questions of fact arising upon the evidence presented in the record, whether the evidence is alleged to be insufficient or not, and to determine the same, as well as questions…”

Meridian Minerals Co. v. Nicor Minerals, Inc., 742 P.2d 456 (Mont. 1987). “Meridian cites Section 3-2-204(5), MCA, as the standard of review supporting its position that equity regards the totality of the circumstances, and will permit piercing of the veil without imposition of strict checklists: “In equity cases and in matters and proceedings of an…”

Davis v. Westphal, 2017 MT 276 (Mont. 2017). “6(3)(e) and § 3-2-204(5), MCA (mandatory review of all questions of fact and questions of law implicated on record in equity cases).”

Shimsky v. Valley Credit Union, 676 P.2d 1308 (Mont. 1984). “" Section 3-2-204(5), MCA. The peculiar circumstances of this appeal show the need for such a broad standard; the legal theory primarily relied on below by appellant has been conceded on appeal, and the issues presented for review relate to a legal theory which was barely…”

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.