Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Agnew

    Case No. 04-62073-7, Adv No. 04-00103 (Bankr. D. Mont. Nov. 15, 2005)

    The general rules of pleading in the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure allow that parties may demand relief in the alternative or of several different types. Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co., 1999 MT 257, ¶ 31, 297 Mont. 7, 16, ¶ 31, 993 P.2d 654, 660, ¶ 31; Weinstein v. University of Montana at Missoula (1995), 271 Mont. 435, 440, 898 P.2d 101, 104. The Court concludes that res judicata does not bar Smith's constructive trust claim.

  2. Somont Oil Co. v. a G Drilling

    348 Mont. 12 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 8 times

    Otherwise, litigation might never be brought to a close. Olympic Coast Investment, Inc., ¶ 26 (citing Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co., 1999 MT 257, ¶ 25, 297 Mont. 7, ¶ 25, 993 P.2d 654, ¶ 25.) ¶ 12 Whether Somont was entitled to damages from C-W for plugging wells on any of the 28 leases in question was from the beginning in 1998 a part of this litigation.

  3. Lorang v. Fortis Insu. Co.

    345 Mont. 12 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 102 times
    In Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 192 P.3d 186 (Mont. 2008), the Court held that the insurer's duty under § 33-18-201(1) "is simply to be truthful in its representations regarding the coverage provisions of an insurance policy."

    , 938 P.2d 1363, 1366-68 (1997) (a prior federal-law action and a subsequent state-law action both arose from the same incident wherein the plaintiff's husband was killed by a police officer, but res judicata was not implicated); Lund v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund, 263 Mont. 346, 351-52, 868 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (evidence of a single on-the-job injury was the subject of consecutive actions for workers' compensation benefits, but neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel were implicated); Anderson v. State, 250 Mont. 18, 19-22, 817 P.2d 699, 700-02 (1991) (consecutive legal actions both involved the facts surrounding the seizure and suspension of a driver's license, but collateral estoppel was not implicated); Estate of Watkins v. Hedman, Hileman Lacosta, 2004 MT 143, ¶¶ 31-34, 321 Mont. 419, ¶ 31-34, 91 P.3d 1264, ¶¶ 31-34 (the evidentiary basis of consecutive lawsuits involved an improperly drafted trust, but neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel were implicated). See also Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co., 1999 MT 257, ¶¶ 27, 31, 297 Mont. 7, ¶¶ 27, 31, 993 P.2d 654, ¶¶ 27, 31; Phelan v. Lee Blaine Enterprises, 220 Mont. 296, 299-303, 716 P.2d 601, 602-05 (1986); and Stapleton v. First Security Bank, 207 Mont. 248, 258, 675 P.2d 83, 89 (1983). ¶ 72 As in the above-noted cases involving consecutive legal actions, the claims and issues raised in this suit are distinct from those in the Lorangs' prior suit against Fortis. Specifically, the Lorangs' first suit asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and violations of the UTPA, inter alia.

  4. Olympic Coast Investment Inc. v. Wright

    325 Mont. 307 (Mont. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    Once there has been a full opportunity to present an issue for judicial decision in a given proceeding, the determination of the court in that proceeding must be accorded finality as to all issues raised or which fairly could have been raised, else judgments might be attacked piecemeal and without end. Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co., 1999 MT 257, ¶ 25, 297 Mont. 7, ¶ 25, 993 P.2d 654, ¶ 25. Res judicata applies when the following criteria are met:

  5. Grenz v. Fire Casualty of Connecticut

    18 P.3d 994 (Mont. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating a matter he or she has already had an opportunity to litigate. See, e.g., Slater v. Central Plumbing Heating Co., 1999 MT 257, ¶ 25, 297 Mont. 7, ¶ 25, 993 P.2d 654, ¶ 25. Once there has been a full opportunity to present an issue for judicial decision in a given proceeding, the determination of the court in that proceeding must be accorded finality as to all issues raised or which fairly could have been raised, else judgments might be attacked piecemeal and without end. Slater, ¶ 25. Res judicata has four elements: (1) the parties or their privies are the same; (2) the subject matter of the claim is the same; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are the same in reference to the subject matter and the issues.

  6. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Mont. Twentieth Judicial Dist. Court

    403 Mont. 57 (Mont. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    She characterizes her attempt as seeking "to proceed on the claims that remain following this Court's remand order." Nunez points out that this Court in Slater v. Central Plumbing & Heating Co. , 1999 MT 257, ¶ 24, 297 Mont. 7, 993 P.2d 654, explained "a reversal extends only to those issues which the appellate court decided in actuality or by necessary implication; it does not affect collateral matters not before the court," and she maintains her common law negligence claim remains a live issue that has not been decided in actuality or by necessary implication before the District Court or this Court. ¶7 The doctrine of claim preclusion "embod[ies] a judicial policy that favors a definite end to litigation, whereby we seek to prevent parties from incessantly waging piecemeal, collateral attacks against judgments."

  7. Folsom v. City of Livingston

    385 Mont. 20 (Mont. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    We review a district court’s conclusion of law for correctness. See Slater v. Cent. Plumbing & Heating Co., 1999 MT 257 , ¶ 13, 297 Mont. 7 , 993 P.2d 654 . “This court reviews for correctness a district court’s conclusion regarding the existence of legal authority to award attorney fees.