Sunburst School District No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Gray
¶128 I concur in the results the Court reaches on all issues, but do not join in several aspects of the Court’s reasoning, particularly where the Court fails to address either the record before us or the arguments presented and where it unnecessarily relies on authorities from other jurisdictions. I respectfully, but vigorously, disagree with the Court’s characterization of Texaco’s Article II, § 3-related argument in Issue 3 as a challenge to any damages other than the restoration costs award, or to the viability of Sunburst’s constitutional tort claim. I also note Texaco frames its CECRA…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kolstad v. American Dental Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Seltzer v. MortonMontana Supreme Court · 2007
- Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & SonMontana Supreme Court · 2000
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.