Legal Opinion · Dissent

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 2007No. 04-042Published

1DissentJustice Nelson

I

¶46 I dissent from the Court’s Opinion for three reasons. First, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the DNRC is able to determine, before the Tribes’ reserved water rights have been quantified, whether a proposed change to an existing water use on the Reservation will “adversely affect” those rights (see § 85-2-402(2)(a), MCA). In my view, the District Court, which provided a cogent and thoughtful analysis of this issue, correctly concluded that the DNRC cannot make a determination that such a change should be authorized unless it knows what the protected rights of the Tribes are.

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
  2. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

46 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