 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boettcher v. Mont. Guar. Fund, No. DA 06-0011,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to the Montana Insurance Guaranty Association because Mont. Code Ann. § 33-10-110 (2001) barred an action for bad faith since this fell outside of the definition of "covered claims" in Mont. Code Ann. § 33-10-102(2)(a). However, no immunity extended to the MIGA's agents.
|
|||||
| In re H.C.R., No. 05-654,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When appellant youth violated the conditions of his probation, the State correctly filed a petition to transfer supervision to adult probation under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-5-208. However, the State breached the sentencing stipulation when it sought a custodial sentence with the DOC, rather than adult supervision.
|
|||||
| In re L.H., No. DA 06-0290,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights to his child, as he did not complete his service plan and his conduct was not likely to change within a reasonable time under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-609(1)(f)(ii); the termination of the mother's parental rights was also affirmed.
|
|||||
| Marriage of King, Cause No. DR-02-188,
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, RAVALLI COUNTY, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Blome, CAUSE NO. DC 05-0733,
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Gutierrez, No. DA 06-0046,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was parked at the drive-through window of a closed restaurant and no vehicle occupant was visible, the officer had sufficient particularized suspicion to initiate an investigative stop. Defendant was not permitted to suppress evidence obtained during the stop in his subsequent trial for driving under the influence of alcohol.
|
|||||
| State v. LaGree, No. 05-674,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment and Mont. Const. art. II, § 24 were not violated by a 426-day delay because the State was not attributed with an 88-day delay due to defense counsel's request for a mental examination, there was no prejudice shown, and the defense was not impaired.
|
|||||
| State v. LeMaster, No. DA 06-0274,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with misdemeanor DUI while driving a four-wheeler, the district court correctly found that he was traveling on a way of the State open to the public at the time of the DUI. Witnesses testified that delivery trucks, motorists, people looking at real estate, and people pulling horse trailers, all traveled on the road.
|
|||||
| State v. Price, No. DA 06-0568,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken as a result of his arrest for DUI. The district court's findings that defendant consented to the blood test and did not desire an independent test were supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
