Legal Opinion

Montana Consumer Finance Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Bullock

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 17, 2010No. OP 10-0366 & OP 10-0371PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*239OPINION AND ORDER

¶1 Petitioner Bernard J. Harrington in his individual capacity and as representative of the Coalition for Consumer Choice Against 1-164 (Harrington) and Petitioner Montana Consumer Finance Association (MCFA) (Collectively “Petitioners”) invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to challenge the Attorney General’s legal sufficiency determination and ballot statements for Initiative No. 164 (1-164). We review the following issue:

¶2 Do the Attorney General’s ballot and fiscal statements comply with §13-27-312, MCA?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 1-164 seeks to cap interest…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burgess v. Alaska Lieutenant Governor Terry MillerAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Stop Over Spending Montana v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Schulte v. LongSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Citizens Right to Recall v. State Ex Rel. McGrathMontana Supreme Court · 2006
  5. FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. GreeneArizona Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Thomas v. PetersonNebraska Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Hoffman Smylie and Abbott v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Montanans Against Tax Hikes v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Bernard Harrington v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Mont. Mining Ass'n v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2018

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