MONT BOARD OF NAT RESOURCES v MO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12889 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN M N A A BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES e t a 1 OTN ., P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , THE M N A A P W R COMPANY, a Corpora t i o n , OTN O E Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, Honorable P e t e r Meloy, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Donald D. MacIntyre a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana F o r Respondents: Thomas K e l l e y a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana William C o l d i r o n a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana John C a r l a p p e a r e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: November 1 2 , 1974 > i ?- , - Decided : ~ , E L 5. , . Filed : ' . " -I, 4 3? rEK CIJRIAM: O October 2 3 , 1974 p l a i n t i f f s , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 40, Elontana n R u l e s of A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , a p p l i e d t o t h i s Court s e e k i n g r e i n s t a t e m e n t of a n i n j u n c t i o n which had been d i s s o l v e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lewis and C l a r k County, pending a p p e a l and f i n a l decisi~n by t h i s C o u r t . The c o n t r o v e r s y h e r e a r o s e a s f o l l o w s : On .June 1 4 , 1974 p l a i n t i f f s i n s t i t u t e d t h i s a c t i o n , C i v i l Cause No. 37972 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , by f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgmen~ and i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t . Plaintiffs sought a r u l i n g d e c l a r i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s proposed 230 L i l o v o l t m i s s i o n l i n e from B i l l i n g s t o G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, trans (the l i n e ) , s u b j e c t t~ t h e Montana U t i l i t y S i t i n g Act o f 1973, s e c t i o n s 70801-70-823, R.C.M. 1947, and an o r d e r t e r m p o r a r i l y r e s t r a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t from c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e l i n e . D i s t r i c t Judge P e t e r G. yieloy i s s u e d t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and s e t a show c a u s e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . On J u l y 3 , 1974 d e f e n d a n t answered t h e c o m p l a i n t s t a t i n g t h e Tine was u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i o r t o J a n u a r y 1, 1973 and t h e r e f o r e w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y exempt from t h e Montana U t i l i t y S i t i n g Act under s e c t i o n 70-811 o f t h a t Act. day. An e v i d e n t i a r y h c a r i n g was h e l d t h e same The p a r t i e s were g i v e n a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o f i l e f u r t h e r b r i e f s . On September 4 , 1974 Judge Meloy found t h a t t h e l i n e was w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n p r o v i d e d by s e c t i o n 7Q-811, R.C.M. 1947, and d ~ m c l u d e dt h a t t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s h o u l d b e d i s s o l v e d . j c c o r d i n g l y , judgment i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t and a g a i n s t p l - a i n t i f f s d a s e n t e r e d on September 26, 1974. On October 4 , 1974 p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l and moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t u n d e r Rule 7 ( a ) , Montana Rules of A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t o s t a y e x e c u t i o n of t h e judgment. This :[lotion was d e n i e d on October 7 , 1974, whereupon p l a i n t i f f s made d p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s Court. By an o r d e r d a t e d October 24, 1974, t h i s Court s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g on November 12, 1974. Hearing was had, and a f t e r examining t h e r e c o r d and consideri.ng t h e arguments of both p a r t i e s , t h i s Court f i n d s , a s d i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a t o t a l absence of f a c t s i n t h e r e c o r d t o support p l a i n t i f f s r a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t discontinuance of t h e injunction w i l l r e s u l t i n i r r e p a r a b l e injury . The r e l i e f sought i s t h e r e f o r e D E N I E D .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.