Court Opinion

ID: 9405324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 22:06:43.170637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.427303
License: Public Domain

1                                              06/27/2023
                                          L1 .'‘,1a.-11

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

                                           DA 22-0112

 WATER FOR FLATHEAD'S FUTURE Inc.,
 AMY WALLER, STEVEN MOORE, and                                        FP F:77)
 CYNTHIA EDSTROM,
                                                                       JUN 2 7 2023
                                                                     Bowen Gr enwooci
              Plaintiffs and Appellees,                            Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                      State of Montana

       v.
                                                                     ORDER
 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

              Defendant and Appellant

 MONTANA ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY

              Intervenor-Defendant and Appellant.

       Water for Flathead's Future, Inc., et al. (collectively "WFF") has filed a Petition for
Rehearing of this Court's Opinion entered May 16, 2023. See Waterfor Flathead's Future,
Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 2023 MT 86, 412 Mont. 258. Both the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Montana Artesian Water Company (Artesian) have
filed objections to the Petition.
       This Court "will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon [a showing]
[t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision; [t]hat it overlooked some question
presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or [t]hat its decision
conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court." M. R.
App. P. 20(1)(a). "A petition for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments
made in the briefs and considered by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris,
Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 443 (citing M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)). Having
reviewed the Petition along with DEQ and WFF's responses, we conclude that WFF has
not demonstrated the existence any of the criteria which would warrant rehearing. M. R.
App. P. 20(1)(a)(i)-(iii).
       WFF contends that this Court's discussion of remedies is unnecessary dicta and
conflicts with § 75-1-201(6)(c)(2), MCA. However, neither of these contentions establish
a basis for rehearing. The Court did not overlook § 75-1-201(6)(c)(2), MCA, but quoted
and discussed it in the opinion. And, while the characterization of the discussion as dicta
may be a basis for argument or comment, it is not grounds for rehearing. Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and DISMISSED.
       The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record.
                       1—
       DATED this Z -4-- day of June, 2023.

                                                                 hief Justice

                                                                 Justices

                                              2