Link v. State
Montana Supreme Court
180 Mont. 469 (1979)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The Montana State Park Commission (defendant) entered into an agreement with Henry Link, John Link, Jr., Elmer Link, and Louis Link, doing business as the Link Bros. (plaintiffs) regarding concession services at the Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park. Under the agreement, the Link Bros. had the right to operate concessions at the state park in exchange for paying 10 percent of gross receipts to the state and for building and conveying certain improvements. The Link Bros. constructed a system that transported visitors between the concession area and the cavern entrances, known as the mountain railroad. The Link Bros. operated the mountain railroad for approximately three years, and then the state assumed control. The Link Bros. entered into a supplemental agreement with the state, in which the state agreed to continue operating the mountain railroad and the Link Bros. agreed not to seek reimbursement for the expenses incurred in constructing it. In 1970, the Link Bros. exercised the option in the agreements to renew for an additional 25 years. However, by 1976, the mountain railroad had fallen into disrepair and was removed. The state replaced the transportation system with a gravel path. The Link Bros. sued, seeking specific performance of the agreement, which would require the state to construct a new mountain railroad. The trial court ruled in favor of the Link Bros. and ordered specific performance from the state. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shanstrom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
