# Montana v. United States > Supreme Court of the United States · February 22, 1979 · 440 U.S. 147 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427458 ## Case - **Full name:** MONTANA Et Al. v. UNITED STATES - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** February 22, 1979 - **Citations:** 440 U.S. 147; 99 S. Ct. 970; 59 L. Ed. 2d 210; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 27 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rehnquist - **Judges:** Marshall, Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blacicmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, White - **Cited by:** 3,467 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Blair v. Taxation Division Director, 9 N.J. Tax 345 (1987). - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427458 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding privity between the government and the civil contractor plaintiff in a prior action barred the government’s subsequent suit where the government had required the contractor’s lawsuit to be filed; reviewed and approved its complaint; paid its attorneys’ fees and costs; … - holding that, although the contract at issue in the second proceeding did not contain a critical provision included in the contract at issue in the original action, collateral estoppel was still applicable in order to prevent “ ‘redundant litigation [over] the identical questi… - finding control-type nonparty preclusion appropriate where the nonparty: (1) caused the earlier lawsuit to be filed; (2) reviewed and approved the complaint; (3) paid the attorneys’ fees and costs; (4) directed the appeal to the Montana Supreme Court; (5) appeared and submitte… - holding that collateral estoppel precludes “parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate[,] protects their adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on… - explaining that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel “once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litiga… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Rehnquist, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion on the customary understanding that its references to law review articles and drafts or finally adopted versions of the Restatement of Judgments are not intended to bind the Court to the views expressed therein on issues not presented by the facts of this case. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427458. Public record. Not legal advice.