Archive | Prevailing party

RSS feed for this section

Shockley v. Cascade County

Shockley v. Cascade County, 2016 MT 34 (Feb. 16, 2016) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court properly denied Shockley’s motion for attorney fees under § 2-3-221, MCA.

Short Answer: Yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Shockley sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between a Cascade County detention office, Jason Carroll, Cascade County, and Carroll’s collective bargaining unit, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2. In 2014 MT 281, this Court held that Shockley had standing to assert a claim against the county for disclosure of the documents. The county had no objection to disclosure, and the district court entered Carroll’s default. The only party opposing disclosure was the union, which relied on the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement, to which it was a party.…