Opinion

Reeves v. Ille Electric Company

  • 170 Mont. 104
  • 551 P.2d 647
  • 1976 Mont. LEXIS 580
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 21, 1976
Status
Published
Author
Nelson
On the bench
Haswell, Castles, Honorable, Nelson, Harrison, Daly
Cited by
66 cases

manufacturer of whirlpool bath was not covered by the statute of repose because the actions were only that of a supplier rather than a designer or installer

How later courts described this case

  • manufacturer of whirlpool bath was not covered by the statute of repose because the actions were only that of a supplier rather than a designer or installer
  • “‘Where an injury has already occurred for which the injured person has a right of action, the Legislature cannot deny him a remedy,’ ” quoting Shea v. North-Butte Mining Co., 55 Mont. 522, 533, 179 P. 499, 503
  • whirlpool bath in field house was improvement
  • whirlpool bath in college field house

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

The HONORABLE R. J. NELSON, District Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Chief Justice Harrison

(concurring and dissenting in part).

I concur in the opinion of the majority except as it applies to the final issue concerning defendant, Ille Electric Company. I would affirm the Judgments.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.