Legal Opinion

Mohl v. Johnson

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1996No. 95-451PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Leaphart

Vivian Mohl (Mohl) appeals from the Gallatin County, Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s Order and Judgment dismissing her action against Timothy Johnson (Johnson). Pursuant to Rule 19(a), M.R.Civ.P, the District Court determined that Johnson’s employer, U-Haul Company of Montana (U-Haul), was an indispensable party to the action. The court then dismissed the case believing the statute of limitations had run against U-Haul and, thus, that U-Haul could not be joined as a defendant. Mohl raises two issues on appeal:

1. Did the District Court err in determining that U-Haul is an indispensable…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Yonofsky v. WernickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  2. Montana Rail Link v. ByardMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Raisler v. Burlington Northern RailroadMontana Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Heath v. Aspen Skiing CorporationDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1971
  5. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. ThompsonMontana Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Williams v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Mountain West Bank, N.A. v. Mine & Mill Hydraulics, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Muri v. FrankMontana Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Ethen Revocable Trust Agreement Dated October 17, 1996 v. River Resource Outfitters, LLCMontana Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Fielder v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 2007

5 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