39-2-503. Repealed. Sec. 4, Ch. 583, L. 2001.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-503 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 39. LABOR
CHAPTER 2. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
Part 5. Termination of Employment
Repealed
History: En. Sec. 2703, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5274, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7789, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1999; Field Civ. C. Sec. 1029; re-en. Sec. 7789, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 245, L. 1969; R.C.M. 1947, 41-304; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 397, L. 1979.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1981–2020 · leading case: Dare v. Montana Petroleum Mktg. Co., 687 P.2d 1015 (Mont. 1984).
Dare v. Montana Petroleum Mktg. Co., 687 P.2d 1015 (Mont. 1984). “2d 1063 , "modified" section 39-2-503, MCA. That section states: "An employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.”
Gates v. Life of Montana Ins., 668 P.2d 213 (Mont. 1983). “Section 39-2-503, MCA, provides that employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to each other.”
Reiter v. Yellowstone Cnty., 627 P.2d 845 (Mont. 1981). “In granting respondents' motion for summary judgment, the District Court found that section 39-2-503, MCA, providing that an employment with no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party was controlling and that Reiter had no constitutional right to a hearing.”
Boreen v. Christensen, 930 P.2d 67 (Mont. 1996). “In addition, Montana has an "at will" employment statute, § 39-2-503, MCA, which has been construed as providing no property interest in employment absent a "specified term" of employment.”
Boreen v. Christensen, 884 P.2d 761 (Mont. 1994). “The State counters that Boreen was an “at will” employee and that, pursuant to § 39-2-503, MCA, and applicable case law, she has no property interest in continued employment.”
Crenshaw v. Bozeman Deaconess Hosp., 693 P.2d 487 (Mont. 1984). “Appellant next claims error by the court’s refusal of section 39-2-503, MCA, instruction of the “at will” statute.”
Med. Horse v. Trs., Big Horn Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 27, 823 P.2d 230 (Mont. 1991). “Section 39-2-503, MCA. We have concluded that an "at will" employee is one whose term of employment has no specific duration.”
Gates v. Life of Montana Ins., 638 P.2d 1063 (Mont. 1982). “; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 4) violation of section 39-2-503, MCA, by failing to give notice prior to discharge; 5) violation of section 39-51-3204, MCA, by failing to disclose material facts to the Unemployment Compensation Division; 6) fraud and deceit…”
Whidden v. John S. Nerison, Inc., 1999 MT 110 (Mont. 1999). “In September, 1994 Nerison gave Whidden a notice of termination, advising her that she was being terminated as an at-will employee under § 39-2-503, MCA. Whidden filed a complaint in March, 1995 and an amended complaint in January, 1996, claiming that she had been discharged…”
Flanigan v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 720 P.2d 257 (Mont. 1986). “Justice Weber, writing for the majority, said: The presence of such facts [long-term employment] indicates that the term of employment has gone beyond the indefinite period contemplated in the at will employment statute, section 39-2-503, MCA, and is founded upon some more…”
Hobbs v. Pac. Hide & Fur Depot, 771 P.2d 125 (Mont. 1989). “The presence of such facts indicates that the term of employment has gone beyond the indefinite period contemplated in the at will employment statute, section 39-2-503, MCA, and is founded upon some more secure and objective basis.”
Meech v. Hillhaven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488 (Mont. 1989). “The Act's provisions on discharge also limit the operation of § 39-2-503, MCA, Montana's "at-will" statute.”
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.