Legal Opinion
Heavirland v. State
Montana Supreme Court
Decided October 22, 2013No. DA 12-0759PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wheat
¶1 The State of Montana appeals from the Montana Water Court’s Order that determined Loren Heavirland, Sue Heavirland and Lyle A. Weist (collectively, claimants) produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of abandonment of their water right claim. We affirm.
ISSUES
¶2 We address the following issues:
1. Did the Water Court correctly conclude that 79 Ranch governs the issue of abandonment?
2. Did the Water Court correctly conclude that the claimants produced sufficient evidence to show they had no intent to abandon their water right?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Interstate Production Credit Ass'n v. DesayeMontana Supreme Court · 1991
- Morris Plan Industrial Bank v. HendersonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Dempsey v. Allstate Insurance Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2004
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2014
- Marks v. 71 Ranch, LPMontana Supreme Court · 2014
- Nelson v. BrooksMontana Supreme Court · 2014
- Parenting of G.J.A. Minor ChildMontana Supreme Court · 2014
- Curry v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2016
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.