Archive | Issue preclusion

RSS feed for this section

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).…

Rose v. Rose

Rose v. Rose, 2016 MT 7 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Baker, J.) (7-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in allocating delinquent tax liability equally between the parties after taxing authorities determined one party was an “innocent spouse.”

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Facts: Sherri and Michael married in 1994 and have three children. They lived in Billings for most of their marriage, separating in late 2012. Sherri petitioned for dissolution in March 2013, and the district court held a bench trial in April 2014.…

Omimex Canada, Ltd. v. Dept. of Revenue

Omimex Canada, Ltd. v. Dept. of Revenue, 2015 MT 102 (April 14, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court properly applied the doctrine of issue preclusion to preclude Omimex from litigating the issue of whether it operates a single and continuous property.

Short Answer: No.

Reversed & remanded

Facts: Omimex is a Montana oil and gas exploration and production company that contests DOR’s central assessment of its property for tax year 2011. Property can be centrally or locally assessed. Central assessment applies to “property owned by a corporation or other person operating a single and continuous property operated in more than one county or more than one state.” § 15-23-101(2), MCA. Centrally assessed property may be classified class nine, which is taxed at 12% of market value.…

Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State

Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2015 MT 31 (Feb. 3, 2015) (Shea, J.; Cotter, J., dissenting) (4-1, rev’d)

Issue: Whether issue preclusion prevents the state from defending the constitutionality of two laws that require the involvement of a minor’s parent before the minor may obtain an abortion.

Short Answer: No, because the constitutional issues raised by the 2011 and 2013 parental-notification statutes are not identical to the constitutional issues raised by the 1995 statute and resolved in Wicklund v. State.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Planned Parenthood of Montana filed suit challenging the constitutionality of (1) a 2011 law requiring parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion, and (2) a 2013 law requiring parental consent before a minor may obtain an abortion.…