Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 60. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION · CHAPTER 7. LIVESTOCK ON HIGHWAYS · Part 2. Grazing of Livestock on Highways
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 60-7-201 (2026)

Grazing Livestock On Highway Unlawful

✓ 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 60
  3. CHAPTER 7
  4. Part 2
  5. 60-7-201 Grazing livestock on highway unlawful

TITLE 60. HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 7. LIVESTOCK ON HIGHWAYS

Part 2. Grazing of Livestock on Highways

Grazing Livestock On Highway Unlawful

60-7-201. Grazing livestock on highway unlawful. A person who owns or possesses livestock may not permit the livestock to graze, remain upon, or occupy a part of the right-of-way of:

(1) a state highway running through cultivated areas or a part of the fenced right-of-way of a state highway if in either case the highway has been designated by agreement between the transportation commission and the secretary of transportation as a part of the national system of interstate and defense highways; or

(2) a state highway designated by agreement between the transportation commission and the secretary of transportation as a part of the federal-aid primary system, except as provided in 60-7-202.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 95, L. 1951; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 186, L. 1961; Sec. 32-1018, R.C.M. 1947; amd. and redes. 32-21-176 by Sec. 7, Ch. 316, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 32-21-176; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 75, L. 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2002 · leading case: Ambrogini v. Todd, 642 P.2d 1013 (Mont. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ambrogini v. Todd, 642 P.2d 1013 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 13× “The court granted his motion on May 6,1981, for the following reasons: (1) Section 60-7-201, MCA, imposes liability on a livestock owner only for negligent conduct which results in his livestock occupying a highway and causing injury; *115 (2) there was no evidence presented at…”
Andersen,. v. Two Dot Ranch, Inc., 2002 WY 105, 49 P.3d 1011. “§§ 81-4-201 to 220), and grazing of livestock on highways (Mont.Code Ann. §§ 60-7-201 to 205) address only willful acts and fail to explicitly consider an inadvertent or accidental escape of animals from the owner's premises.”
State Ex Rel. Martin v. Finley, 738 P.2d 497 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 4× “In the instant case, the only possibly relevant statute is Section 60-7-201, MCA, which, because it is limited to the rights-of-way of state highways, is inapplicable to the county roads at issue in this case.”
Indendi v. Workman, 899 P.2d 1085 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 4× “Section 60-7-201 does not apply to the following: (1) livestock on state highways under the charge of one or more herders; (2) the parts of fenced highways adjacent to open range where a highway device has not been installed to exclude range livestock; (3) the parts of a state…”
Siegfried v. Atchison, 709 P.2d 1006 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 6× “livestock to graze, remain upon, or occupy a part of a right-of-way of: (1) a state highway running through cultivated areas or a part of the fenced right-of-way of a state highway if in either case the highway has been designated by agreement between the highway commission and…”
Yager v. Deane, 853 P.2d 1214 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 2× “As discussed above, the District Court determined that § 60-7-103, MCA, did not impose a duty on the State to fence livestock off the highway on the facts before it; appellants do not argue otherwise.”
Larson-Murphy v. Steiner, 2000 MT 334, 15 P.3d 1205. · cites it 17× “” ¶65 Today, § 60-7-201, MCA, is far less lenient. An owner oflivestock now may not lawfully permit his livestock to graze, remain upon, or occupy a part of the right-of-way of: (1) a state highway running through cultivated areas or a part of the fenced right-of-way of a state…”
Read v. Buckner, 514 F. Supp. 281 (D. Mont. 1981). “In short, I believe that Chapter 169, 1945 Laws of Montana, was a part of the historical process of conforming the open range law to the needs of a modern world.”
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.