Legal Opinion

Tarlton v. Kaufman

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 2008No. DA 07-0590PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Leaphart

¶1 Robert Tarlton and Mary Tarlton (collectively “the Tarltons”) appeal from the judgment entered on a jury verdict in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, which found that a fence covered in dark material and approximately 26 feet in height installed by James Kaufman and Gretchen Kim Kaufman (collectively “the Kaufmans”) was not a nuisance or a spite fence. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

¶2 We address the following issues on appeal, restated as follows:

¶3 I. Did the District Court err by instructing the jury that “[gjenerally, a structure or condition cannot constitute…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Kiely Construction, L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge Ex Rel. Red Lodge City CouncilMontana Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  3. Northfield Insurance v. Montana Ass'n of CountiesMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  4. McJunkin v. Kaufman & Broad Home Systems, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Murphy Homes, Inc. v. MullerMontana Supreme Court · 2007

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. United National Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Peterson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. DethmanMontana Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Mark Spotted Horse v. BNSF RailwayMontana Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Teeter v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.Montana Supreme Court · 2017

16 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