12 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2019Wilson , 279 Mont. at 40 , 926 P.2d at 716 . 2019Wilson , 279 Mont. at 40 , 926 P.2d at 716 . | 1 | 2 |
Fisher v. First Citizens Bankgreen2 sentences2019See Reams , 284 Mont. at 454-55 , 945 P.2d at 56 . ¶25 A savings clause "excepts from the new legislation matters that would otherwise be governed by the new law and preserves the existing law for such excluded matters." Fisher v. First Citizens Bank , 2000 MT 314 , ¶ 19, 302 Mont. 473 , 14 P.3d 1228 . 2019See Reams , 284 Mont. at 454-55 , 945 P.2d at 56 . ¶25 A savings clause "excepts from the new legislation matters that would otherwise be governed by the new law and preserves the existing law for such excluded matters." Fisher v. First Citizens Bank , 2000 MT 314 , ¶ 19, 302 Mont. 473 , 14 P.3d 1228 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Wyoming v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017See also Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1234 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Geier v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Pmc, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Companygreen2 sentences2017The Ninth Circuit also explained that “Congress did not want § 113(h) to serve as a shield against litigation that is unrelated to disputes over environmental standards.” Fort Ord, 189 F.3d at 831.4 ¶47 While a principle purpose of CERCLA’s savings clauses is to reinforce the right to demand hazardous waste cleanup apart from CERCLA, a savings clause “is not intended to allow specific provisions of the statute that contains it to be nullified.” PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618 (7th Cir. 1998). 2017The purpose of a savings clause “is merely to nix an inference that the statute in which it appears is intended to be the exclusive remedy for harms caused by the violation of the statute.” PMC, 151 F.3d at 618 . | 1 | 1 |
Fort Ord Toxics Project, Inc. v. California Environmental Protection Agencygreen1 sentence2017The Ninth Circuit also explained that “Congress did not want § 113(h) to serve as a shield against litigation that is unrelated to disputes over environmental standards.” Fort Ord, 189 F.3d at 831.4 ¶47 While a principle purpose of CERCLA’s savings clauses is to reinforce the right to demand hazardous waste cleanup apart from CERCLA, a savings clause “is not intended to allow specific provisions of the statute that contains it to be nullified.” PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618 (7th Cir. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences1966In Hill v. State, 139 Mont. 407, 408, 409, 411 , 365 P.2d 44, 45 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1261 this court held: “When sections 80-739 and 80-741 were repealed and section 80-740 was amended to its present form, a savings clause was enacted. 1966In Hill v. State, 139 Mont. 407, 408, 409, 411 , 365 P.2d 44, 45 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1261 this court held: “When sections 80-739 and 80-741 were repealed and section 80-740 was amended to its present form, a savings clause was enacted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estrada
green
2 sentences2019Relying on In re Estrada , 63 Cal.2d 740 , 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d 948 , 953 (1966), we held that, lacking any direction from the Legislature about application of the repealed statute to current cases, a savings clause would have been necessary to preserve the former law's application to Wilson and, thus, Wilson was entitled to the benefit of the outright repeal of the statute. 2019Relying on In re Estrada , 63 Cal.2d 740 , 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d 948 , 953 (1966), we held that, lacking any direction from the Legislature about application of the repealed statute to current cases, a savings clause would have been necessary to preserve the former law's application to Wilson and, thus, Wilson was entitled to the benefit of the outright repeal of the statute. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Knight v. OMI CORP.
green
2 sentences2003In Grenfell, the lease stipulated that when the landlord took possession, “the landlord was entitled to ‘enjoy’ the premises ‘as if the lease had not been made,’ reserving the right to ‘recover from Lessee all rent due up to the time of such entry’ (emphasis added).” Grenfell, ¶ 53. ¶15 We have held that “a savings clause must be explicit as to the right reserved.” Knight, 174 Mont. at 77 , 568 P.2d at 555 . 2003In Grenfell, the lease stipulated that when the landlord took possession, “the landlord was entitled to ‘enjoy’ the premises ‘as if the lease had not been made,’ reserving the right to ‘recover from Lessee all rent due up to the time of such entry’ (emphasis added).” Grenfell, ¶ 53. ¶15 We have held that “a savings clause must be explicit as to the right reserved.” Knight, 174 Mont. at 77 , 568 P.2d at 555 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Thornock v. State
green
2 sentences2003For example, citing to New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey (3rd Cir. 1985), 774 F.2d 587, 592 , we stated that “[s]tate laws dealing with workers safety are preempted once OSHA enacts similar standards.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 72 , 745 P.2d at 327 . 2003For example, citing to New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey (3rd Cir. 1985), 774 F.2d 587, 592 , we stated that “[s]tate laws dealing with workers safety are preempted once OSHA enacts similar standards.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 72 , 745 P.2d at 327 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
green
2 sentences2003As the Supreme Court stated, “the *238 natural implication of [the savings clause] is that state laws regulating the same issue as federal laws are not saved, even if they merely supplement the federal standard.” Gade, 505 U.S. at 100 , 112 S.Ct. at 2384 , 120 L.Ed.2d at 85 . 2003As the Supreme Court stated, “the *238 natural implication of [the savings clause] is that state laws regulating the same issue as federal laws are not saved, even if they merely supplement the federal standard.” Gade, 505 U.S. at 100 , 112 S.Ct. at 2384 , 120 L.Ed.2d at 85 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
green
1 sentence2003For example, citing to New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey (3rd Cir. 1985), 774 F.2d 587, 592 , we stated that “[s]tate laws dealing with workers safety are preempted once OSHA enacts similar standards.” Thornock, 229 Mont. at 72 , 745 P.2d at 327 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Ohio Manufacturers' Association v. City Of Akron
green
1 sentence2003Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, 801 F.2d at 834 . ¶54 The Court of Appeals did not, as stated by this Court in Thornock , find express preemption of the city’s workers’ safety laws. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Industrial Truck Association, Inc. v. Henry
green
1 sentence2003Gade , however, was not a field preemption case, and we find the City’s reliance on Gade for the proposition that the OSH Act has preempted the entire field to be unpersuasive. ¶39 The City next relies on Industrial Truck Ass’n, Inc. v. Henry (9th Cir. 1997), 125 F.3d 1305 , to support its field preemption argument. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Haugen v. Blaine Bank of Montana
green
2 sentences2000Haugen, 279 Mont. at 9 , 926 P.2d at 1368 . 2000Haugen, 279 Mont. at 9 , 926 P.2d at 1368 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Boles v. Simonton
neutral
2 sentences1991In Boles v. Simonton (1990), 242 Mont. 394 , 791 P.2d 755 , the malpractice claimed was omission of a savings clause in a default clause in a contract for deed. 1991In Boles v. Simonton (1990), 242 Mont. 394 , 791 P.2d 755 , the malpractice claimed was omission of a savings clause in a default clause in a contract for deed. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bonnet v. Seekins
green
2 sentences1977Plaintiffs, on appeal, present two issues for review: (1) Whether the lease at issue contains any savings clause preserving lessor’s right upon breach by lessee to sue lessee for damages based upon rent falling due after cancellation of the lease. (2) Whether such a savings clause is a prerequisite to the right of lessor to sue the breaching lessee for damages based on rent falling due after cancellation. *75 The parties agree that generally, following forfeiture, cancellation of a lease and reentry by the landlord terminates the lease and with it all obligations, covenants, and stipulations d 1977Plaintiffs, on appeal, present two issues for review: (1) Whether the lease at issue contains any savings clause preserving lessor’s right upon breach by lessee to sue lessee for damages based upon rent falling due after cancellation of the lease. (2) Whether such a savings clause is a prerequisite to the right of lessor to sue the breaching lessee for damages based on rent falling due after cancellation. *75 The parties agree that generally, following forfeiture, cancellation of a lease and reentry by the landlord terminates the lease and with it all obligations, covenants, and stipulations d | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State Ex Rel. City of Missoula v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1976The statement of this Court in State v. Holmes, 100 Mont. 256, 291 , 47 P.2d 624 , 636 particularly applies: *70 “* * * In the absence of such a [savings] provision the presumption is against the mutilation of a statute, and that the Legislature would not have enacted it except in its entirety. 1976The statement of this Court in State v. Holmes, 100 Mont. 256, 291 , 47 P.2d 624 , 636 particularly applies: *70 “* * * In the absence of such a [savings] provision the presumption is against the mutilation of a statute, and that the Legislature would not have enacted it except in its entirety. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Cline
green
2 sentences1969See 22 C.J.S. ■ Criminal Law § ■ 27, p. 89; State v. Cline, 135 Mont. 372 , 339 P.2d 657 . 1969See 22 C.J.S. ■ Criminal Law § ■ 27, p. 89; State v. Cline, 135 Mont. 372 , 339 P.2d 657 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Galahan v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1964In Galahan v. Lewis, 105 Mont. 294 , 72 P.2d 1018 , it was held that a notice of appropriation not filed within the time provided in the savings clause of the original recording act of 1885 was of no evidentiary value in proving the amount or date of an appropriation. 1964In Galahan v. Lewis, 105 Mont. 294 , 72 P.2d 1018 , it was held that a notice of appropriation not filed within the time provided in the savings clause of the original recording act of 1885 was of no evidentiary value in proving the amount or date of an appropriation. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.