Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney fees and costs to Musselshell Ranch Company and related plaintiffs in litigation concerning interference with irrigation ditch easement rights. The Court held that under § 70-17-112(5), MCA, a party must prevail on all claims brought under the statute to qualify as the prevailing party, and the Ranch had not prevailed on every claim.
Holdings
- A party seeking attorney fees and costs under Montana Code § 70-17-112(5) must prevail on all claims raised pursuant to that statute; prevailing on a majority of the claims is insufficient.
Questions Presented
- Whether a party that prevailed on most, but not all, claims brought under Montana Code § 70-17-112 may recover attorney fees and costs under subsection (5).
- Whether the District Court erred in denying the Ranch's request for attorney fees and costs after the first appeal resulted in removal of the culvert and rock bridge.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (11)
- Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 2011 MT 217, 362 Mont. 1, 261 P.3d 570(followed)
- Benintendi v. Hein, 2011 MT 298, 363 Mont. 32, 265 P.3d 1239(followed)
- Knudsen v. Taylor, 211 Mont. 459, 685 P.2d 354 (1984)(followed)
- Sharon v. Hayden, 246 Mont. 186, 803 P.2d 1083 (1990)(followed)
- Boylan v. Van Dyke, 247 Mont. 259, 806 P.2d 1024 (1991)(followed)
- Rieman v. Anderson, 282 Mont. 139, 935 P.2d 1122 (1997)(followed)
- Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 298 Mont. 116, 993 P.2d 701(followed)
- Espy v. Quinlan, 2000 MT 193, 300 Mont. 441, 4 P.3d 1212(followed)
- Graveley Simmental Ranch Co. v. Quigley, 2003 MT 34, 314 Mont. 226, 65 P.3d 225(followed)
- Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 337 Mont. 167, 159 P.3d 1062(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…