McEwen v. MCR, LLC
Montana Supreme Court
1Concurrence
JUSTICE NELSON,
specially concurring.
¶83 I concur in the Court’s decision as to Issues One and Three. I also concur in the result of the Court’s Opinion as to Issue Two (concerning restoration costs) and most of the Court’s analysis under that issue. I disagree, however, with the premise upon which the Court’s harmless-error analysis is based. Specifically, I do not agree that the District Court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that restoration costs are the appropriate measure of damages. I explain my reasoning in Part I below. Additionally, given the Court’s clarifications to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Yossie Hollander, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1999
- Beaty v. McGrawCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
- Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & WeaverIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
- Sunburst School District No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.