Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Montana Power Company v. FERGUS ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1967No. 11177Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*265MB. JUSTICE JOHN CONWAY HABBISON:

I concur in part and dissent in part.

Mr. Justice Freeboum, speaking for a unanimous court in the case of Sheridan County Electric Co-op, Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 128 Mont. 84, 270 P.2d 742, said in construing the Bural Electric Cooperative Act, sections 14-501 to 14-531, B.C.M.1947, to determine whether or not the BEA had exclusive rights in rural areas to provide electrical energy: ’ ■

“Under the provisions of this Act the plaintiff has a right to provide electric energy to the designated rural areas. Nowhere in said Act, however, can one find…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sheridan County Electric Co-Op., Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Montana Power Co. v. Park Electric Co-OperativeMontana Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Montana Power Co. v. Vigilante Electric Cooperative, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API