Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Slack, 2001 MT 137, 29 P.3d 503.
· cites it 66× “On May 19, 1994, DOT offered the Slacks $168,069 plus interest and necessary litigation expenses as defined by § 70-30-306, MCA. The Slacks accepted DOT's offer and judgment was entered.”
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 2018 MT 139, 419 P.3d 685.
· cites it 55× “Did the District Court err by denying the facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the definition under § 70-30-306, MCA, ***425 of the "necessary expenses of litigation" a prevailing party is constitutionally authorized to obtain, as the "customary" rate for attorneys…”
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Am. Bank, 2008 MT 362, 195 P.3d 844.
· cites it 112× “The question before us in the portion of Slack referenced by the District Court, however, was whether § 70-30-306, MCA, attorney fees *848 could be enhanced for delay between the attorney fee rate at the time the services were performed and the time the determination was made.”
Blasdel v. Montana Power Co., 640 P.2d 889 (Mont. 1982).
· cites it 15× “LITIGATION EXPENSES Did the trial court err in allowing litigation expenses to plaintiffs under section 70-30-306, MCA? We first note that the trial court held a one-day trial on litigation expenses at which the parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their fees in…”
K & R P'ship v. City of Whitefish, 2008 MT 228, 189 P.3d 593.
· cites it 7× “0 back to the date of the Agreement,” which was October 6, 1998; (2) pursuant to § 70-30-302(2), MCA (1997), K&R is owed interest from the date of service of summons, issued here even before the order granting possession; and (3) pursuant to the Montana Constitution, interest on…”
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Skyline Broadcasters, Inc., 2009 MT 193, 211 P.3d 189.
· cites it 14× “MDT agreed to pay $400,000 for the property, along with the defendants’ necessary expenses of litigation as defined under §70-30-306, MCA. Counsel for defendants Questa and Mytty moved for payment of their attorney fees and other expenses of litigation in the amount of $3,665,…”
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 2018 MT 245, 427 P.3d 1018.
· cites it 8× “Fee Order I also utilized caps imposed by § 70-30-306, MCA, which this Court found could be constitutionally challenged as-applied.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Highways v. Helehan, 615 P.2d 925 (Mont. 1980).
· cites it 15× “On May 14, 1979, before the entry of judgment, Helehan’s attorney filed a motion for determination of necessary expenses of litigation under section 70-30-306, MCA. On May 17, 1979, the State filed a motion to retax costs claimed by Helehan, upon the single ground that the cost…”
Missoula v. Mountain Water, 2021 MT 122, 487 P.3d 15.
· cites it 17× “The District Court held Owners were prevailing parties with the right to be reimbursed for their necessary litigation expenses but concluded that the City’s litigation costs were irrelevant to whether the Owners met the requirements of § 70-30-306, MCA. The District Court…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Highways v. McGuckin, 788 P.2d 926 (Mont. 1990).
· cites it 5× “” Section 70-30-306, MCA. Both the statute, § 70-30-305(1), MCA, and the State’s final offer of settlement contemplate that the Department’s final offer will only include the landowners’ necessary expenses of litigation accrued until the date a settlement is reached.”
State, by & Through Dept. of Hys. v. Helehan, 615 P.2d 925 (Mont. 1980).
· cites it 15× “On May 14, 1979, before the entry of judgment, Helehan's attorney filed a motion for determination of necessary expenses of litigation under section 70-30-306, MCA. On May 17, 1979, the State filed a motion to retax costs claimed by Helehan, upon the single ground that the cost…”
Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Simonson, 2004 MT 60, 87 P.3d 416.
· cites it 4× “on's determination) both take place, but the rejected final offer is more than the amount ultimately awarded? In order words, which party gets costs when? ¶ 37 My confusion is exacerbated by the Legislature's use of the word "costs" of the appeal in §§ 70-30-304(3) and -305(1),…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-30-306(1): 5 cases
K & R P'ship v. City of Whitefish, 2008 MT 228, 189 P.3d 593.
“0 back to the date of the Agreement,” which was October 6, 1998; (2) pursuant to § 70-30-302(2), MCA (1997), K&R is owed interest from the date of service of summons, issued here even before the order granting possession; and (3) pursuant to the Montana Constitution, interest on…”
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Am. Bank, 2008 MT 362, 195 P.3d 844.
“The question before us in the portion of Slack referenced by the District Court, however, was whether § 70-30-306, MCA, attorney fees *848 could be enhanced for delay between the attorney fee rate at the time the services were performed and the time the determination was made.”
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 2018 MT 139, 419 P.3d 685.
“Did the District Court err by denying the facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the definition under § 70-30-306, MCA, ***425 of the "necessary expenses of litigation" a prevailing party is constitutionally authorized to obtain, as the "customary" rate for attorneys…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-30-306(2): 8 cases
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Slack, 2001 MT 137, 29 P.3d 503.
“On May 19, 1994, DOT offered the Slacks $168,069 plus interest and necessary litigation expenses as defined by § 70-30-306, MCA. The Slacks accepted DOT's offer and judgment was entered.”
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Am. Bank, 2008 MT 362, 195 P.3d 844.
“The question before us in the portion of Slack referenced by the District Court, however, was whether § 70-30-306, MCA, attorney fees *848 could be enhanced for delay between the attorney fee rate at the time the services were performed and the time the determination was made.”
City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 2018 MT 139, 419 P.3d 685.
“Did the District Court err by denying the facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the definition under § 70-30-306, MCA, ***425 of the "necessary expenses of litigation" a prevailing party is constitutionally authorized to obtain, as the "customary" rate for attorneys…”
Blasdel v. Montana Power Co., 640 P.2d 889 (Mont. 1982).
“LITIGATION EXPENSES Did the trial court err in allowing litigation expenses to plaintiffs under section 70-30-306, MCA? We first note that the trial court held a one-day trial on litigation expenses at which the parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their fees in…”
State Ex Rel. Montana Dep't of Transp. v. Skyline Broadcasters, Inc., 2009 MT 193, 211 P.3d 189.
“MDT agreed to pay $400,000 for the property, along with the defendants’ necessary expenses of litigation as defined under §70-30-306, MCA. Counsel for defendants Questa and Mytty moved for payment of their attorney fees and other expenses of litigation in the amount of $3,665,…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-30-306(3): 1 case
Missoula v. Mountain Water, 2021 MT 122, 487 P.3d 15.
“The District Court held Owners were prevailing parties with the right to be reimbursed for their necessary litigation expenses but concluded that the City’s litigation costs were irrelevant to whether the Owners met the requirements of § 70-30-306, MCA. The District Court…”
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.