Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wamsley v. NODAK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 2008No. DA 06-0194Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Warner

¶71 I concur with the Court in several respects. I disagree with the Court on the seminal issue of whether the District Court was required by conflict of laws principles previously adopted and by comity to dismiss this action. This action should either be decided under North Dakota law or dismissed in deference to the North Dakota judgment.

¶72 This case stems from the Court’s decision in Hardy, which unduly restricts the right to contract, and denies the legislature its rightful role in making policy decisions. The Court compounded the problems inherent in Hardy when it decided Mitchell by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. RoachSupreme Court of Florida · 2006
  2. Lee v. SaligaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Bohannan v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
  4. Davis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Jeanne Armsted Rhody and Donnell Rhody v. State Farm Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985

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