Ward v. Johnson, 277 P.3d 1216

Ward filed suit for personal injuries in Yellowstone County alleging tort and product liability claims against Johnson and Powder River.
Injury occurred in Pondera County; Powder River is an Idaho corporation with principal place of business in Utah.
Johnson resides in Pondera County; Ward resides in Yellowstone County.
Johnson moved to change venue to Pondera County; Ward opposed citing Nelson v. Cenex Inc. for Yellowstone County as proper.
The District Court granted the change to Pondera County, ruling it was the only proper venue per § 25-2-122(1).
Ward appeals, arguing § 25-2-122(2) controls due to Powder River’s out-of-state incorporation; Nelson guides this analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue in Pondera County was proper.	Ward argues § 25-2-122(2) applies because Powder River is out-of-state.	Johnson contends § 25-2-122(1) controls since only resident defendant matters for venue.	Ward's complaint was properly filed in Yellowstone; venue valid under § 25-2-122(2).
Whether application of venue statutes violates equal protection.	Ward asserts no violation given rational basis and plaintiff interests in forum.	Johnson claims disparate treatment based on resident vs. nonresident defendants.	Statutes have rational basis; no equal protection violation.

Nelson v. Cenex Inc., 322 Mont. 54 (2004 MT 170) (holds § 25-2-118(2) inapplicable when Montana residents exist; venue guided by other statutes)
Ford v. Burlington Northern R.R., 250 Mont. 188 (1991 MT) (equal protection rational-basis review of venue decisions in tort actions)
Burlington N. R.R. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648 (1992) (federal rational-basis justification for state venue distinctions)
Weiss v. State, 219 Mont. 447 (1986 MT) (principles on venue applicability to all defendants)