Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shelby Distributors, LLC v. Montana Department of Revenue

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 2009No. DA 07-0334Published

1DissentJustice Cotter

¶45 The Court appears to premise its due process decision on two bases: (1) DOR’s decision to enforce the MABC was “neither mean-spirited nor deceitful”; and (2) the sanction imposed upon Shelby Distributors was not so “fundamentally unfair... that it violates Shelby Distributors’ due process rights.” Opinion, ¶ 25. The rationale, in other words, is that fining Shelby for past lawful conduct is not quite bad enough to merit reversal-a low bar by any measure. I dissent from this offhand approach for the reasons set forth in Justice Nelson’s dissent and those set forth below.

¶46 As we stated in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Newville v. State, Dept. of Family ServicesMontana Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Powell v. State Compensation Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Small v. McRaeMontana Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State v. YoungMontana Supreme Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API