Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wohl v. City of Missoula

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 2014No. DA 14-0161Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Baker

¶28 The District Court erred in awarding the Landowners’ attorney’s fees for the prior appeal, and this Court errs in affirming that award. The parties already briefed, and we already considered and decided, the identical issue in the Landowners’ petition for rehearing in Wohl I.

¶29 Landowners’ petition for rehearing was limited to a single issue. They argued that the Court had overlooked their request for attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal and asked the Court to award both. The Ciiy opposed the petition and we denied it, stating;

[I]f the Court intends for attorney’s fees to be awarded…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. RoslingMontana Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. GarrymoreMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  3. O'BRIEN v. Great Northern Railroad CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Malcolm v. EVENFLO CO., INC.Montana Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Belgrade State Bank v. SwainsonMontana Supreme Court · 1978

7 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