Core-Mark International Inc. v. Montana Board of Livestock, 329 P.3d 1278

Core-Mark distributes groceries including milk in Montana from its Spokane, Washington division.
The Montana Board of Livestock enforces milk dating standards and the 12-day sell-by rule under Admin. R. M. 32.8.202 and related rules.
In 2008, Inland Northwest Dairies obtained a dual-date exemption; that exemption was later rescinded in 2008, affecting Core-Mark’s imports.
Core-Mark and the Board settled federal litigation by agreeing to pursue an administrative petition under MCA 2-4-315 to modify the 12-day Rule, with a two-part hearing process.
The Process: a formal evidentiary hearing before an independent examiner, followed by a public-comment stage; the Board then voted to retain the 12-day Rule in 2012 without written findings.
The district court held the proceeding was a rulemaking action, not a contested case, and affirmed the Board’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the proceeding a contested case?	Core-Mark: proceeding was a contested case under MAPA § 2-4-102(4).	Board: proceeding was rulemaking under § 81-2-102(l)(f) and MAPA Part 3, not a contested case.	Not a contested case; it was rulemaking.
If not contested, should arbitrary and capricious review apply?	Core-Mark contends contested-case standards should apply due to formal hearing.	Board and district court appropriately applied arbitrary and capricious review for non-contested cases.	Arbitrary and capricious standard applies.
Did the Board's decision to retain the 12-day Rule violate the arbitrary and capricious standard?	Board failed to provide written findings; decision unsupported by the record.	Board thoroughly considered evidence; no requirement for written findings in this context, and decision was supported by the record.	Board's decision not arbitrary or capricious.
Is the 12-day Rule a valid exercise of Board authority?	Rule exceeds statutory authority and is inconsistent with the purpose of regulating milk standards.	12-day Rule is within Board’s authority to regulate milk standards under § 81-2-102(l)(f) and reasonably necessary to implement the statute.	Valid exercise of Board authority.

St. Personnel Div. v. Child Support Investigators, 308 Mont. 365 (2002 MT) (clearly erroneous standard for contested cases)
Ulrich v. State ex rel. Bd. of Funeral Servs., 961 P.2d 126 (1998 MT) (clear error standard for examiner findings)
Clark Fork Coalition v. Mont. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 197 P.3d 482 (2008 MT) (arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence; statutory standard)
Hobble Diamond Ranch LLC v. State, 268 P.3d 31 (2012 MT) (arbitrary or capricious standard; record-based review)
Johansen v. St. DNRC, 955 P.2d 653 (1998 MT) (contestable vs. non-contestable review distinctions)
Mont. Trout Unlimited v. Mont. DNRC, 133 P.3d 224 (2006 MT) (statutory interpretation; reasonableness of agency action)
Bick v. St. Dept. of Just., 730 P.2d 418 (1986 MT) (agency’s authority; reasonable within delegated authority)
Fulmer v. Bd. of R.R. Commrs., 28 P.2d 849 (1934 MT) (proper exercise of statutory power)