Murer v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund
Montana Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Gray
I concur in the Court’s opinion on all issues except that involving the award of attorney fees pursuant to the common fund doctrine. I respectfully dissent from the opinion on that issue.
There is no question but that we have recognized and applied the common fund doctrine, which is based on equitable concepts. Means, 625 P.2d at 37.1 agree with the doctrine and support its application under appropriate circumstances. I cannot agree with its application in this case for two reasons: first, it is my view that neither the Workers’ Compensation Court or this Court is authorized to award such fees…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Raffety v. Kanta Products, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1991
- Wildin v. Cna Insurance CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1993