TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harmon v. Billings Bench Water Users Association

Virginia Harmon, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Brandon Scott Harmon v. The Billings Bench Water Users Association and the City of Billings

Harmon v. Billings Bench Water Users Ass'n, 776 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 22, 1985
Docket
No. 84-4136
Citations
776 F.2d 14411985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24232

Opinion

776 F.2d 1441

Virginia HARMON, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Brandon Scott Harmon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BILLINGS BENCH WATER USERS ASSOCIATION and the City of Billings, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84-4136.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1985.

Donald W. Molloy, Anderson, Edwards & Molloy, Billings, Mont., for plaintiff-appellant.

Steven Harmon, Anderson Law Firm, Billings, Mont., for defendants-appellees.

ORDER

Before HUG, FARRIS, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

1

Billings Bench Water Users Association brings an emergency motion urging us to withdraw and reconsider our published opinion of July 19, 1985, 765 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir.1985), wherein we addressed a district court disposition granting summary judgment against the mother of a five-year-old who drowned in an irrigation ditch. We affirmed in part but reversed and remanded for trial on theories of attractive nuisance and negligence.

2

Two months after our opinion was filed, the Montana Supreme Court decided a case which cited our opinion and which abolished attractive nuisance with regard to artificial bodies of water such as irrigation ditches. Limberhand v. Big Ditch Company, et al., --- Mont. ----, 706 P.2d 491 , 42 St.Rep. 1460 (decided September 26, 1985).

3

In Harmon we remanded on theories of both attractive nuisance and negligence. Limberhand abolishes attractive nuisance by subsuming it within negligence. The district court will follow the rule of law enunciated in Limberhand v. Big Ditch Company, et al., by the Supreme Court of Montana to the extent that it differs from the rule of law set forth in our opinion.

4

We deny the motion to withdraw the opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co., 706 P.2d 491 (Mont. 1985) 62

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list