Archive | Equitable estoppel

RSS feed for this section

Newlon v. Teck American, Inc.

Newlon v. Teck American, Inc., 2015 MT 317 (Nov. 10, 2015) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether Teck and Newlon formed an enforceable contract; and (2) if so, whether Teck can assert the 60-month rule under § 39-71-704(1)(d) to avoid having to pay Newlon’s benefits.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Newlon worked for Teck as a miner from 1972 until the mine closed in 1993. Newlon was injured in several incidents over the years, including at least three separate injuries involving his left knee. Newlon had surgery on the knee in 1993 and 1996, but his symptoms and problems persisted.

Teck’s assistant manager, Moore, approached Newlon in 1996 about settling all of Newlon’s work comp claims.…

MC, Inc. v. Cascade City-County Board of Health

MC, Inc. v. Cascade City-County Bd. Of Health, 2015 MT 52 (Feb. 24, 2015) (Rice, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Casino Owners regarding their compliance with the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act, and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorneys’ fees to Casino Owners for the preliminary injunction proceeding.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the board’s favor

Facts: In 2011, Casino Owners built smoking shelters attached to their two casinos. The shelters have four walls, including a common wall with the casinos, multiple large glass windows, inside entrances, a roof, carpeting, heating, air conditioning, electricity, and gaming machines.…

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer

In re the Marriage of Pfeifer, 2013 MT 129 (May 14, 2013) (4-1) (McGrath, C.J., for the majority; Rice, J., dissenting)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by requiring Phillip to pay child support beyond the parties’ child’s 18th birthday; and (2) whether the district court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude Susan’s claim for back child support.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no, overruling Marriage of Shorten, 1998 MT 267.

Affirmed