MIGHT v ZAVARELLI

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 89-565 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA MIKE MIGHT, Appellant, -vsERMINDO ZAVARELLI and AMVETS POST NO. 4, Petitioner and Respondents, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, LIQUOR DIVISION and LEO MIGHT, - r--i -.- -I.-,, 3 = 3 5l - - Respondents and Respondents. c-2 APPEAL FROM: ;. District Court of the Fourth ~ u d i c i a ~ ~ i s < ~ c t , 5 In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Douglas G. Harkin, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant (s): Timothy D. Geiszler; Geiszler Montana & Newcomer, Missoula, For Respondent (s): John C. Schulte, Missoula, Montana Eric Fehlig, Tax Counsel, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana Leo Might, Pro Se, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 25, 1990 Decided: March 9 , 1990 Filed: { Clerk Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court. Mike Might appeals the partial summary judgment granted by the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County to petitioners/respondents Ermindo Zavarelli and Amvets Post No. 4, allowing the status of the premises located at 411 N. California, Missoula, Montana, to continue as a legal nonconforming use. This Court finds substantial evidence in the record which supports the District Court's judgment. Further, we accept the District Court's determination that, an earlier declaratory judgment of the District Court controlled, the lapse of time was beyond the control of petitioners, and there is no evidence of abandonment to trigger the 90-day lapse provision of the zoning ordinance. Petitioners are not barred from applying for a new beverage license. Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. See Rules 34 and 35, M.R.App.P. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. Justice ' We Concur: 7 .q , Chief / Justice Justices ' / /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.