Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., LLC

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 2014No. DA 14-0201Published

1DissentJustice McKINNON

¶35 I am not as confident as the Court in concluding that Shopko’s statements were unequivocal and constituted a deliberate waiver, expressly conceding certain facts. As discussed below, the statements originally were made by Bilesky’s counsel, not Shopko’s counsel, in the context of a motion for sanctions under M. R. Civ. P. 37 for spoliation of evidence. Shopko’s counsel never asserted unequivocally that the statements were true, nor did Shopko’s counsel indicate that he had *71confirmed the truth of the statements with someone affiliated with Shopko. Indeed, Shopko employees ultimately…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,908 Alexander MacDonald (95-6028/6286) v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant (95-6030/6287)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  2. Denise Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
  3. Robinson v. McNeil Consumer HealthcareCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
  4. Coleman v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Richardson v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2006

21 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