Had they made their wishes known in advance, the city would have provided the files in preferred format the first time around, Jones said at the time.

Wednesday, she said the city focused its time in the briefing on relevant issues, and the majority's opinion shows the justices reviewed the entirety of the record to reach their conclusion that proof weighed in favor of the city.

"So five out of seven judges rejected the same arguments that Justice Rice is making now," Jones said.

***

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rice found fault with Judge Townsend, writing that "the District Court exhibited a judicial preference for condemnation." Yet he said Montanans hold private property rights in the highest regard.

"In Montana, the right to possess property is considered so fundamental that our constitution deems it 'inalienable,' " the dissent said.

Mountain Water had the right in court for "a meaningful opportunity to be heard" before the city took its property, he said. But when the defendants requested extra time to review material the city provided after "foot dragging," the judge didn't grant the request despite the plaintiff's "flagrant discovery abuses."