Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ducham v. Tumared2 sentences2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler , we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. 2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler , we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kephart v. Portmann
green
2 sentences2011In Kephart v. Portmann, 259 Mont. 232 , 855 P.2d 120 (1993), after the Portmanns exercised their right to enter, repair, and maintain their ditch under §70-17-112(1), MCA, the Kepharts filed suit and thereby forced the Portmanns into court to defend the existence of the ditch right and corresponding secondary easement. 2011In Kephart v. Portmann, 259 Mont. 232 , 855 P.2d 120 (1993), after the Portmanns exercised their right to enter, repair, and maintain their ditch under §70-17-112(1), MCA, the Kepharts filed suit and thereby forced the Portmanns into court to defend the existence of the ditch right and corresponding secondary easement. | 2 | 2007–2011 |
Musselshell Ranch Company v. Seidel-Joukova
green
2 sentences2025Relying on this Court’s decision in Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217 , 362 Mont. 1 , 261 P.3d 570 , the District Court ruled that the installation of permanent structures and other obstacles preventing MDC from safely conducting maintenance of the Ditch was unreasonable. ¶7 JD Bar D was ordered to remove the cement pump box, water pump, pipeline, electrical conduit, and wooden bridge, and to pay approximately $40,000 in attorneys’ fees for interfering with MDC’s easement by “forcing it to defend its rights in court.” The District Court dismissed MDC’s preliminary injunction 2025Relying on this Court’s decision in Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217 , 362 Mont. 1 , 261 P.3d 570 , the District Court ruled that the installation of permanent structures and other obstacles preventing MDC from safely conducting maintenance of the Ditch was unreasonable. ¶7 JD Bar D was ordered to remove the cement pump box, water pump, pipeline, electrical conduit, and wooden bridge, and to pay approximately $40,000 in attorneys’ fees for interfering with MDC’s easement by “forcing it to defend its rights in court.” The District Court dismissed MDC’s preliminary injunction | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Knudsen v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2012Knudsen, 211 Mont. at 460-61 , 685 P.2d at 355 . 2012Knudsen, 211 Mont. at 460-61 , 685 P.2d at 355 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Butler v. Germann
green
2 sentences2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler, we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. 15 Butler 2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler, we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. 15 Butler | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Engel v. Gampp
green
2 sentences2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler , we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. 2006Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 56 , 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 56 , 993 P.3d 701 , ¶ 56 (upholding district court’s enjoinment of interference with dominant tenant owner’s secondary easement to access irrigation ditch under § 70-17-112(4), MCA), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12; Ducham v. Tuma, 265 Mont. 436, 442-43 , 877 P.2d 1002, 1007 (1994) (enjoining trespass), overruled in part on other grounds, Shammel, ¶ 12. ¶36 As discussed above in Butler , we affirmed the district court’s mandatory injunction requiring the Germanns to restore the irrigation ditch to its former height. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sharon v. Hayden
green
2 sentences1997In Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186 , 803 P.2d 1083 , the defendants were the prevailing parties in a case brought to enforce ditch easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA. 1997In Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186 , 803 P.2d 1083 , the defendants were the prevailing parties in a case brought to enforce ditch easement rights under § 70-17-112, MCA. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.