Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Murer v. State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1997No. 95-542Published

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

  1. Raffety v. Kanta Products, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Wildin v. Cna Insurance CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API