explaining that Montana’s Open Courts provision is “a section dealing with the administration of justice,” and is “addressed to securing the right to set the machinery of the law in motion”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Montana’s Open Courts provision is “a section dealing with the administration of justice,” and is “addressed to securing the right to set the machinery of the law in motion”
- recognizing that the WDEA “limits the time for bringing a cause under its provisions to one year from the date of discharge”
- providing that the “law of Montana has long recognized that the courts and the legislature establish the substantive law governing tort claims”
- noting that the legislature has "plenary power ... in determining the availability of punitive damages"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. JUSTICE HARRISON,
dissenting.
While I agree with much that is said by the majority in this opinion, the totality of this opinion in reversing so many cases this Court has previously decided, necessitates my filing this dissent.
I cannot concur with all that has been said in the dissent of Mr. *74 Justice John C. Sheehy, yet I find I must agree with Justice Sheehy regarding Corrigan v. Janney (Mont. 1981), [ 192 Mont. 99 ,] 626 P.2d 838 , 38 St.Rep. 545 . I feel that it is totally unnecessary to reverse Corrigan which established that when a cause of action is grounded on statute the plaintiff has a fundamental right to full legal redress under that statute.