Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board v. Crumleys, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
1DissentJustice Rice
¶105 The Court’s conclusion that the Board acted within its statutory authority when it required Visocan to assign its contractual rights against Federated in order to obtain reimbursement from the fund ignores our precedent and well-settled rules of statutory interpretation to draw a contrived meaning of the applicable statutes. Indeed, the Court concludes that the Legislature authorized the Board to pursue subrogation litigation on the basis of one single, solitary word in the statutory scheme. The conclusion is untenable, and I dissent.
*57¶106 As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Trustees of Indiana University v. BuxbaumMontana Supreme Court · 2003
- State Ex Rel. Swart v. CasneMontana Supreme Court · 1977
- Board of Barbers of the Department of Professional & Occupational Licensing v. Big Sky College of Barberstyling, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1981
- Brown v. EspositoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. BarnessDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.