70-30-101. Eminent domain defined. Eminent domain is the right of the state to take private property for public use. This right may be exercised in the manner provided in this chapter.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-30-101 (2026)
Eminent Domain Defined
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 70. PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. EMINENT DOMAIN
Part 1. General and Substantive Provisions
Eminent Domain Defined
History: En. Sec. 579, p. 189, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 579, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 597, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 2210, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 7330, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9933, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1237; re-en. Sec. 9933, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-9901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 2007 MT 183, 165 P.3d 1079.
Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 2007 MT 183, 165 P.3d 1079. “Section 70-30-101, MCA. A potential tortfeasor would have an incentive to disregard or discount risks of contamination or pollution to neighboring property owners.”
Richter v. Rose, 1998 MT 165, 962 P.2d 583. “Among the public uses on behalf of which the right of eminent domain may be exercised are private roads leading to farms or residences.”
Mcewen v. Mcr, LLC, 2012 MT 319, 291 P.3d 1253. “The Montana legislature further has endowed private 5 individuals with eminent domain power for specific activities that the legislature has deemed public uses. Section 70-1-205, MCA. ¶19 Section 70-30-111(1), MCA, first requires MCR-T to demonstrate that its proposed use of…”
Montana Talc Co. v. Cyprus Mines Corp., 748 P.2d 444 (Mont. 1987). “Section 70-30-101, MCA. It is a power constitutionally grounded.”
Wohl v. City of Missoula, 2013 MT 46, 300 P.3d 1119. “Specifically, they alleged that the City had arbitrarily and illegally taken their property for public use without compensation and due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article II, Sections 3, 17, and 29 of…”
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 2016 MT 183, 378 P.3d 1113. “For the reasons set forth below we hold that the District Court’s factual finding that public ownership of the water system is more necessary than private ownership was not clearly erroneous.”
Schara v. Anaconda Co., 610 P.2d 132 (Mont. 1980). “, or the eminent domain statutes, section 70-30-101, MCA, et seq., to support this position.”
City of Bozeman Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Vaniman, 869 P.2d 790 (Mont. 1994). “Section 70-30-101, MCA; Art. II, § 29, Mont.”
Yellowstone Valley Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Ostermiller, 608 P.2d 491 (Mont. 1980). “773 ; section 70-30-101, MCA. In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, just compensation is required.”
Leichtfuss v. Dabney, 2005 MT 271, 122 P.3d 1220. “In her amended counterclaim, she advanced an alternative theory pursuant to the eminent domain statutes (§§ 70-30-101 to -323, MCA). ¶16 Following a hearing on April 20, 2004, the District Court issued a decision in favor of Dabney.”
Galt v. State, 749 P.2d 1089 (Mont. 1988). “” Section 70-30-101, MCA. It was the legislature’s enactment of statutes which resulted in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation that characterizes this case as an eminent domain proceeding.”
Montana Power Co. v. Fondren, 737 P.2d 1138 (Mont. 1987). “Section 70-30-101, MCA. The Siting Act, first enacted in 1973, was essentially an environmental law whose policy was to maintain and improve the environment while allowing controlled development of large energy facilities.”
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.