Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Colmore v. Uninsured Employers Fun

Montana Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 2005No. 04-310Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Nelson

¶67 I concur with our decision as to Issue One. I disagree with our resolution of Issue Two and, therefore, dissent. I would affirm the Workers’ Compensation Court as to both issues.

¶68 Issue Two turns on a statute that contains a time period for advancing an appeal. This time period begins to run, as do all statutory time periods, upon the existence of certain specified conditions. Here, the statute at issue provides that the existence of a “dispute” is a prerequisite condition for the running of this time period. Thus, the “dispute” requirement is just that-a requirement. It is not a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Orr v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re Parenting of DAHMontana Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Joseph Eve & Co. v. AllenMontana Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Security Bank and Trust Company v. ConnorsMontana Supreme Court · 1976

1 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