 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Otto v. Montana Dept. of Fish12/14/2000
nothing to do with the date on which the summons was issued. No purpose at all was served by requiring that it be issued within one year when it didn't have to be served for three years from the date on which the complaint was filed.
35 To dismiss cases without a resolution on the merits because of failure to comply with a rule that serves no practical purpose is a harsh and pointless result. Had the appropriate arguments been made, my vote would have been other than to affirm the District Court. However, I agree that it is appropriate for the majority to limit their decision to the arguments presented by the parties and leave the issue of substantive due process for another day when the parties on both sides have had an opportunity to fully brief and argue it.
TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., joins in the foregoing specially concurring opinion.
WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.
|