Archive | Claim preclusion

RSS feed for this section

Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish

Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish, 2016 MT 254 (Oct. 11, 2016) (Rice, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment on the basis of claim preclusion.

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Facts: Warren Schweitzer and Ingela Schnittger (Owners) own two lots in a Whitefish subdivision adjacent to Whitefish Lake, which the city of Whitefish has annexed. Owners have owned the property for several years. In 2005, Owners decided to tear their home down and build a new house. Their plans called for replacing the existing septic tank and drain field. Owners were advised they could hook up to the city water and sewer if their property was annexed into Whitefish. Owners successfully petitioned to be annexed in 2005.…

Denturist Assoc. of Montana v. State Dept. of Labor & Industry

Denturist Assoc. of Montana v. State Dept. of Labor & Industry, 2016 MT 119 (May 24, 2016) (Rice, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in concluding Brisendine’s claims were barred by res judicata.

Short Answer: No, as to Counts II and III, but yes as to Count I.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part

Facts: The Denturist Association of Montana, on behalf of denturist Carl Brisendine, filed suit against the Board of Dentistry, challenging the validity of A.R.M. 24.138.2302(1)(j) (Rule J). the parties have been in dispute since 1991 in a series of cases. Brisendine’s complaint alleged three counts: discriminatory restraint of trade (Count I), and conflict with various statutes (Counts II and III).…

Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2016 MT 90 (April 12, 216) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court correctly held that claim preclusion bars Asarco’s claims.

Short Answer: Yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Atlantic Richfield (AR) sold a zinc fuming plant and related property in East Helena to Asarco in 1972. In the sales agreement, AR agreed to indemnify Asarco for liabilities arising out of AR’s operations at the site, and to deliver all relevant documents to Asarco. It also represented and warranted that it had delivered all information required by the disclosure clause.

In 1984, the property and surrounding area were designated a Superfund site under CERCLA. The EPA identified both AR and Asarco as potentially responsible parties, ultimately determining that Asarco was obligated to pay for the cleanup.…