Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Spieth v. Stuart

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1956No. 9524Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MR. JUSTICE DAVIS:

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree that Spieth’s appeal to the district court after the board’s denial of his petition for rehearing brought his claim before that court and within its jurisdiction. But I do not agree with the disposition which the majority makes of the case upon the merits. I would set aside the judgment of the lower court and affirm the board’s order.

My dissents in Levo v. General-Shea-Morrison, 128 Mont. 570, 280 Pac. (2d) 1026; Rathbun v. Taber Tank Lines, Inc., 129 Mont. 121, 283 Pac. (2d) 966, and Gaffney v. Industrial Accident Board,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Montana Horse Products Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Continental Supply Co. v. AbellMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Gaffney v. Industrial Accident Board of MontanaMontana Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Levo v. General-Shea-MorrisonMontana Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Rathbun v. Taber Tank Lines, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1955

3 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