Paulson v. Flathead Conservation District’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Dick Anderson Construction, Inc. v. Monroe Construction Co. (2009), Martz v. Beneficial Montana, Inc. (2006)
70 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · State v. Finley · Day v. Payne · State v. Radi · Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is well established that this Court will not review an issue that was not raised in the district court. `It is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Vacating an award. (1) Upon the application of a party, the district court shall vacate an award if: (a) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (b) there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (c) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (d) the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of 27-5-213, in a manner that substantially prejudiced the rights of a party; (e) there was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under 27-5-115 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; or (f) a neutral arbitrator failed to make a material disclosure required by 27-5-116. An award may be vacated because of a material noncompliance with 27-5-116 no later than 90 days following discovery of the failure to disclose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“are not permitted to review the merits of the controversy, but may only confirm, vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award pursuant to §§ 27-5-311, -312, and -313, MCA.” Teamsters Union Local No. 2, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. C.N.H. Acquisitions, Inc., 2009 MT 92, ¶ 14 , 350 Mont. 18 , 204 P.3d 733 . ¶11 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.