Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McEwen v. MCR, LLC

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 2012No. DA 11-0722Published

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

  1. 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
  2. Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1999
  3. Beaty v. McGrawCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
  4. Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & WeaverIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Sunburst School District No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2007

13 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