DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Citation
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Parent Document
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
2008-12-16
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888205/denke-v-shoemaker/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text

604 chars 
¶78 Second, the City invokes Aristotle’s Logica for the proposition: “Something has to be or not be. Something cannot both be and not be.”2 Applying this principle here, the City argues that either Shoemaker was engaged in “legislative behavior” when he wrote the letters, in which case his statements were privileged under § 27-1-804, MCA, or *348he was not engaged in “legislative behavior” when he wrote the letters, in which case he was not acting within the scope of his employment. “Either way,” the City asserts, “Denke loses.” The City also posits that “Aristotle would have agreed with the HRC.”