Constitutional Challenges

Constitutional Law: Constitutional Challenges: Burden

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc., 2010 MT 135 Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging a statute bears the burden of proving the statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. The claimants failed to meet their burden of proving § 39-71-413, MCA, was unconstitutional.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Malcomson v. Liberty Northwest [08/16/13] 2013 MTWCC 21 The right to receive workers’ compensation benefits, in and of itself, is not a fundamental right. However, any constitutional claim involving a fundamental right which sounds in workers’ compensation law is not somehow stripped of its status as a fundamental right simply because the statute is found within the WCA.

Schmill v. Liberty NW Ins. [6/22/01] 2001 MTWCC 36 Statutes are presumed to be constitutional and party raising constitutional challenge must persuade the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is in fact unconstitutional.

Fisch, Frost, and Rausch v. State Fund [4/20/01] 2001 MTWCC 15 One attacking the constitutionality of a statute must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law is unconstitutional.

(VanHorn) Killion v. State Fund [4/22/99] 1999 MTWCC 30To prevail on a constitutional challenge, claimant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the challenged statute is unconstitutional. Heisler v. Hines Motor Co., 282 Mont. 270, 279, 937 P.2d 45, 50 (1997).

Powell v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [2/4/99] 1999 MTWCC 10 To succeed in a constitutional challenge, claimant must persuade the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is not constitutional. Claimant did not carry his burden of proving section 39-71-1107, MCA (1995), relating to compensation for 24-hour domiciliary care provided by a family member, was unconstitutional.

Zempel v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [2/21/96] 1996 MTWCC 19 Petitioner challenging constitutionality of UEF statute, which excludes coverage of employees of employer who was not required to have WC insurance because he was an enrolled member of an Indian tribe working exclusively on a reservation, bore a heavy burden, requiring him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.