Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 2009No. DA 08-0352Published

1DissentJustice Leaphart

¶88 I dissent on issues two and three. The Court has failed to apply both parts of the test for determining ostensible authority. The Court has analyzed only the second step: “Part of the test to determine whether ostensible authority exists is to determine what a prudent person, acting in good faith, under the circumstances, would reasonably believe the authority to be.” Opinion, ¶ 42. While it is true that part of the test is, indeed, a “prudent person” perspective, the Court fails to analyze the first part of this Court’s long-established test for determining ostensible authority.

¶89 As we…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Butler Manufacturing Co. v. J & L IMPLEMENT CO.Montana Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Albinger v. HarrisMontana Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Randolph v. Peterson, Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Youderian Construction, Inc. v. HallMontana Supreme Court · 1997
  5. LeFeber v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 2009

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