Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Montana Power Company v. .Carey

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1984No. 83-323Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

The HONORABLE THOMAS A. OLSON, District Judge,

sitting for MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY, concurring and dissenting:

I agree with the majority that the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) has statutory authority to impose conditions or limitations on a new water permit to ensure that senior appropriators are not left short of water. In this case, I would approve of DNRC’s condition that Monforton not irrigate if the senior users needed *100water. The practical effect of such a limitation would vary from year to year, depending upon the availability of water for irrigation. As I shall point…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bordeaux v. BordeauxMontana Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Tucker v. Missoula Light & Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Norman v. CorbleyMontana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Mettler v. Ames Realty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Creek v. Bozeman Water Works Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1894

5 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