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 1993–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharon v. Haydengreen2 sentences2002See Kephart v. Portmann (1993), 259 Mont. 232, 239 , 855 P.2d 120, 124 (citing Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186, 189 , 803 P.2d 1083, 1085 ). ¶65 We hold that Sitz, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA. 2002See Kephart v. Portmann (1993), 259 Mont. 232, 239 , 855 P.2d 120, 124 (citing Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186, 189 , 803 P.2d 1083, 1085 ). ¶65 We hold that Sitz, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA. | 1 | 2 |
Knudsen v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2025Compare Knudsen, 211 Mont. at 463-64 , 685 P.2d at 357 . ¶55 Finally, the District Court’s tailoring of the scope of the easement to the existing pipe addressed extent of relief, not liability, and did not negate prevailing-party status. 2025Compare Knudsen, 211 Mont. at 463-64 , 685 P.2d at 357 . ¶55 Finally, the District Court’s tailoring of the scope of the easement to the existing pipe addressed extent of relief, not liability, and did not negate prevailing-party status. | 1 | 1 |
Espy v. Quinlangreen2 sentences2007Section 70-17-112, MCA, again, provides: (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair, and maintain a canal or ditch. (2) No person may encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation or any other lawful domestic or commercial purpose, including carrying return water. (5) If a legal action is brought to enforce the provisions of this section, the prevailing party is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. ¶67 We have held that “in order to be deemed a ‘prevailing part/ for purposes of § 70-17-11 2007Section 70-17-112, MCA, again, provides: (1) A person with a canal or ditch easement has a secondary easement to enter, inspect, repair, and maintain a canal or ditch. (2) No person may encroach upon or otherwise impair any easement for a canal or ditch used for irrigation or any other lawful domestic or commercial purpose, including carrying return water. (5) If a legal action is brought to enforce the provisions of this section, the prevailing party is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. ¶67 We have held that “in order to be deemed a ‘prevailing part/ for purposes of § 70-17-11 | 1 | 1 |
Kephart v. Portmanngreen2 sentences2002See Kephart v. Portmann (1993), 259 Mont. 232, 239 , 855 P.2d 120, 124 (citing Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186, 189 , 803 P.2d 1083, 1085 ). ¶65 We hold that Sitz, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA. 2002See Kephart v. Portmann (1993), 259 Mont. 232, 239 , 855 P.2d 120, 124 (citing Sharon v. Hayden (1990), 246 Mont. 186, 189 , 803 P.2d 1083, 1085 ). ¶65 We hold that Sitz, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova
green
2 sentences2014Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, ¶ 7 , 366 Mont. 337 , 286 P.3d 1212 . 2014Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2012 MT 222, ¶ 7 , 366 Mont. 337 , 286 P.3d 1212 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley
green
2 sentences2025Thus, there is no 18 The claimants in Musselshell Ranch, ¶¶ 19-21, pleaded multiple claims, all “embedded within” a statutory interference claim under § 70-17-112, MCA; none of the claims asserted “an independent legal basis” for relief or were “posited under a separate and distinct legal theory.” 19 Accord Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley, 2003 MT 34, ¶¶ 46-49 , 314 Mont. 226 , 65 P.3d 225 (regardless of his joint liability for damage on an associated tort claim, claimant was entitled to attorney fees under § 70-17-112, MCA, where he succeeded on “the only claim he brought pursuant to 2025Thus, there is no 18 The claimants in Musselshell Ranch, ¶¶ 19-21, pleaded multiple claims, all “embedded within” a statutory interference claim under § 70-17-112, MCA; none of the claims asserted “an independent legal basis” for relief or were “posited under a separate and distinct legal theory.” 19 Accord Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley, 2003 MT 34, ¶¶ 46-49 , 314 Mont. 226 , 65 P.3d 225 (regardless of his joint liability for damage on an associated tort claim, claimant was entitled to attorney fees under § 70-17-112, MCA, where he succeeded on “the only claim he brought pursuant to | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.