Legal Opinion

Rothwell v. Allstate Insurance

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1999No. 98-124PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Nelson

¶1 The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, has certified to this Court the following question:

Whether the provisions of § 39-2-701(1X1995), MCA, that “[a]n employer must indemnify his employee ... for all that he necessarily expends or loses in direct consequence of the discharge of his duties as such or of his obedience to the directions of the employer,” are validly subject to waiver by an employee by way of a provision in the employer’s standard written contract of employment whereby the employee purports to agree to accept less than full…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Shea v. North-Butte Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Parchen v. ChessmanMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Hoehne v. Sherrodd, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State Ex Rel. Neiss v. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Ravalli CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1919

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Phillips v. General Motors Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Collection Bureau Services, Inc. v. MorrowMontana Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Campbell v. MahoneyMontana Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Reier Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. ReierMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Cole v. Valley Ice GardenMontana Supreme Court · 2005

4 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