On appeal from the Park County District Court, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Park Conservation District’s designation of a channel of the Yellowstone River near the City of Livingston as part of the natural course of the river as reasonable and worthy of judicial deference, even though the record demonstrated that the channel had been continuously used as an irrigation conveyance system and local parties had historically referenced the stream with inconsistent characterizations. Looking ahead, this decision illustrates the Court’s strong deference to the resolutions and statutory interpretations of the state’s local conservation districts. To a lesser degree, the Court’s acceptance of the analytic framework used in determining the st...
In Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada, Dept. of Wildlife, the Court of Appeals for the N...
Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, el...
The Montana Supreme Court held that the district court erred as a matter of law and abused its discr...
On January 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Montana reversed and remanded a district court decision th...
After twenty years of adjudication, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the City of Helena’s right to...
Did Wyoming violate the Yellowstone River Compact’s provisions governing the Tongue River in various...
In 2007, Montana filed an original action with the United States Supreme Court asserting that certai...
Defendant landowners claimed possession of riparian lands bordering the Missouri River. However, the...
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law requiring that applicants for new ground water permits in c...
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Judicial District Court’s holding that Montana Code An...
The Montana Supreme Court held in 2020 that loopholes in the Montana Environmental Procedure Act ( M...
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to ente...
This case decision carries a strong message from the Montana Supreme Court to local planning bodies ...
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of constr...
After two trips to the United States Supreme Court, an Alaskan moose hunter secured motorized access...
In Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada, Dept. of Wildlife, the Court of Appeals for the N...
Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, el...
The Montana Supreme Court held that the district court erred as a matter of law and abused its discr...
On January 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Montana reversed and remanded a district court decision th...
After twenty years of adjudication, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the City of Helena’s right to...
Did Wyoming violate the Yellowstone River Compact’s provisions governing the Tongue River in various...
In 2007, Montana filed an original action with the United States Supreme Court asserting that certai...
Defendant landowners claimed possession of riparian lands bordering the Missouri River. However, the...
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law requiring that applicants for new ground water permits in c...
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Judicial District Court’s holding that Montana Code An...
The Montana Supreme Court held in 2020 that loopholes in the Montana Environmental Procedure Act ( M...
The Western Montana Water Users challenged the authority of the Flathead Joint Control Board to ente...
This case decision carries a strong message from the Montana Supreme Court to local planning bodies ...
Kloker v. Fort Peck Tribes investigates and deciphers the application of the Indian canons of constr...
After two trips to the United States Supreme Court, an Alaskan moose hunter secured motorized access...
In Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Nevada, Dept. of Wildlife, the Court of Appeals for the N...
Attempts to alter water use agreements, especially those spanning back decades or even centuries, el...
The Montana Supreme Court held that the district court erred as a matter of law and abused its discr...