Family-owned Decker Truck Line Inc. of Fort Dodge, Iowa, confirmed that it has permanently closed its terminal in Missoula, Montana, citing findings from a thorough review of its operations and freight network as the main reason for the closure.
“This decision was not made lightly, but it is necessary due to the changing freight network patterns and the associated costs of operating a full terminal that is not being utilized sufficiently,” CEO Dale Decker said in a statement Tuesday about the closure.
As many as 18 positions were eliminated at the Missoula terminal, according to NBC Montana.
Decker said a small group of drivers was also affected by the closure but added that the company will continue to utilize truck drivers in Montana to haul freight.
Advertisement
The trucking company said it plans to work with employees of the now-shuttered terminal to “explore relocation options” if they want to stay with Decker Truck Line.
“As our business continues to grow, our focus will shift more towards core regions. This strategy aims to enhance density in our well-established areas,” Decker said. “However, we will continue to require drivers residing in the Montana area, but we no longer consider it a strategic advantage for having a terminal in Missoula along with the associated overhead costs.”
The 94-year-old trucking company has around 790 company drivers and the same number of power units. It hauls general freight, refrigerated food and building materials, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s SAFER website.
Besides its home terminal in Fort Dodge, which has approximately 190 employees, Decker Truck Line operates terminals in Mediapolis, Iowa; Bessemer, Alabama; and Hammond, Indiana, as well as a maintenance facility in Des Moines, according to the company’s website.
“Although this location no longer offers sufficient value to warrant a terminal, expansion in other regions may prompt new investments in areas that do provide clear benefit to our network,” Decker said.
Advertisement
Do you have a news tip or story to share? Send Clarissa Hawes an email or message @cage_writer on X, formerly known as Twitter. Your name will not be used without your permission.
Read more articles here:
Wyoming trucking company pays $124,000 to settle sexual harassment suit
New Hampshire man created fake trucking, ag businesses to collect COVID funds St. Louis trucking company, affiliate file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing
02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Advertisement
Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing
03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02
Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing
06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing
21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25
Advertisement
Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing
28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02
Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?
Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.
Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.
Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:
The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….
There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:
While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.
The Missoulan article includes this response:
Advertisement
In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”
As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”Mayhisexampleprofitothers,” in the Falen translation.
