Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Olson v. Parchen

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1991No. 91-112Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Trieweiler

I concur with that part of the majority’s opinion which relates to issues one and two; holds that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, and holds that there was no evidence to support a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

I dissent from that part of the majority’s opinion which affirms the District Court’s refusal to permit the plaintiff to present evidence at trial of economic damage resulting from the loss of rental income and lost profits.

The majority cavalierly dismissed Olson’s damage claim with the following…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tri-Tron International, a Montana Corporation v. A. A. Velto and William Wurz, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  2. Smith v. ZeppMontana Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Cremer v. Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Jacqueline's Washington, Inc. v. Mercantile Stores Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Smith v. Fergus CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1934

5 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