Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Beehive Homes v. Harding

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 2006No. 04-391Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nelson

¶55 I concur in the Court’s resolution of Issues Two and Three. However, with respect to Issue One, while I agree with the Court’s ultimate conclusion that Harding waived its right to a summary judgment hearing, I dissent from the analysis proffered by the Court in support of this conclusion.

¶56 In a series of cases beginning with Cole v. Flathead County, 236 Mont. 412, 771 P.2d 97 (1989), this Court established unequivocally that (1) in the ordinary case, both the movant and the adverse party are “entitled” to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and, therefore, a district court may…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cole v. Flathead CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Estate of Schwabe v. Custer's Inn Associates, LLPMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Konitz v. ClaverMontana Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Linn v. City County Health DepartmentMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Virginia City v. OlsenMontana Supreme Court · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API