Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BNSF Ry. Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. QUAL.
Montana Supreme Court
Decided March 10, 2010No. DA 09-0028Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Cotter
¶14 I concur with the Court’s conclusion that to the extent the District Court’s ruling was premised on the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, such a determination is not subject to interlocutory challenge. However, because there were three grounds-and not one-for the District Court’s decision, I would, in fairness to BNSF, reach those components of the venue decision that are subject to immediate appeal, and reverse.
¶15 The District Court cites “convenience of witnesses and ends of justice” as its third and final rationale to support the change of venue. The court appears to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ford v. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & ParksMontana Supreme Court · 1984
- Wentz v. Montana Power Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1996
- Circle S Seeds of Montana, Inc. v. Montana Merchandising, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2006
- Guang Xiang Liang v. LaiMontana Supreme Court · 2004
- I.S.C. Distributors, Inc. v. TrevorMontana Supreme Court · 1993