 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Adams v. State, No. 05-610,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where 169 days of the delay in bringing appellant to trial was attributable to him, counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim. In the aggravated assault case, the court's failure to submit the weapons enhancement issue to the jury was harmless error; appellant was not entitled to post-conviction relief.
|
|||||
| Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Dahlquist, No. DA 06-0170,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1-16, an arbitration award was invalid ab initio because the arbitration group was not the arbitrator specified in the parties' agreement and the bank did not consent to such arbitration, for purposes of 9 U.S.C.S. § 5, and thus the trial court did not err in refusing to confirm the award.
|
|||||
| City of Kalispell v. Burgert, No. DA 06-0083,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a city presented several police officers' testimony to show that defendant knowingly obstructed a police officer and resisted arrest, the municipal court did not err by denying defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence to establish probable cause. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, No. 04-835,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court overruled cases applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to questions involving a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Mont. R. Civ. P. 50(a); evidence might have led a jury to find that an employer lacked good cause to fire its employee such that judgment for the employer under Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b) was error.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Moore, No. 05-383,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon dissolution of a marriage, the district court considered all the factors set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-202 in distributing the property; the wife was properly awarded a portion of the husband's retirement account which contained marital funds. The award of spousal maintenance was based on the wife's employment limitations.
|
|||||
| State v. Cline, Cause No. CDR-2006-231,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Frazier, No. DA 06-0271,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-17-203(2)(b); the trial court's interrogation was inadequate to determine whether there was a factual basis for defendant's guilty plea, and the plea colloquy did not meet the statutory requirements of Mont. Code Ann. § 46-12-212.
|
|||||
| State v. Hughes, Docket No. CDC-2006-278,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Molder, No. 05-024,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-13-202(2), (3), given that counsel was ready for trial and defendant suffered no prejudice as claimed, and a separate hearing to consider the motion was not necessary, as there was no request for new counsel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
