Statutes and Statutory Interpretation: Conflicting Provisions
MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS |
Boyd v. Zurich American Ins. Co. [03/16/10] 2010 MT 52 A specific statute of limitations controls over a general statute of limitations applicable to a variety of actions. Specific to the filing of petitions in the Workers’ Compensation Court, § 39-71-2905, MCA, establishes the limitations periods for disputes over benefits and requires that a petition for hearing be filed within two years of denial of benefits. Section 27-2-203, MCA, does not apply where § 39-71-2905, MCA, controls. |
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [03/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 12 Whenever a statute addresses a subject in general and comprehensive terms, and another statute addresses a part of the same subject in a more minute and definite way, the two should be read together and harmonized, as much as possible, to give effect to each. If the specific statute conflicts with the general statute and cannot be harmonized to give effect to both, the specific statute controls over the general statute to the extent of the inconsistency. |
Broyles
v. Albertson's [2/27/04] 2004 MTWCC 19 The
provisions of a statute should be reconciled, if possible, in a manner
which gives effect to all provisions. |
| Re: Colon [12/12/02] 2002 MTWCC 63 Courts must reconcile conflicting statutory provisions and make them operative in accordance with the legislative intent, insofar as it is possible to do so. |