Archive | Injunctive relief

RSS feed for this section

Kelly v. Teton Prairie, LLC

Kelly v. Teton Prairie, LLC, 2016 MT 179 (July 26, 2016) (Wheat, J.; Rice, J., concurring) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court correctly applied the prior appropriation doctrine; (2) whether the district court correctly found that Teton Prairie failed to establish the elements of the futile call doctrine; and (3) whether the district court erred in issuing an injunction.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Each of the Kelly appellees (“Kelly”) owns property in Choteau County, where they have farms and ranches. Teton Prairie owns property in Teton County, upstream of Kelly on the Teton River. Kelly’s water rights are primarily for stockwater, with some for domestic use. Teton Prairie’s water rights are for irrigation, and are junior to all of Kelly’s rights.…

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier, 2013 MT 166 (June 19, 2013) (7-0) (McGrath, C.J.; Rice, J., concurring)

Issue: Whether the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction on the basis that the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks had violated § 87-1-216, MCA, by transferring bison to the Ft. Peck Reservation.
Short Answer: No. Tribal lands are not “private or public lands in Montana,” and the statute therefore does not apply.

Reversed

Western MT Water Users v. Mission Irrig. District

Western MT Water Users Assoc., LLC v. Mission Irrig. Dist., 2013 MT 92 (April 9, 2013) (7-0) (Morris, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court has issued a final appealable order; (2) whether the district court properly granted the writ of mandate and injunction; and (3) whether the district court properly determined that the irrigation districts had to comply with §§ 85-7-1956 and 85-7-1957, MCA, before executing the Water Use Agreement.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, because the order included an injunction; (2) no, because the district court issued its order on grounds not raised or argued by the parties; and (3) no, because those statutes apply only to contracts with the U.S. for a loan of money.

Reversed