 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hajenga v. Schwein, No. 04-432,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting a driver summary judgment because a factual dispute existed concerning whether an oral settlement agreement between a motorist and the driver's insurance adjuster included coverage of future medical expenses, which precluded summary judgment under Mont. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
|
|||||
| Mallak v. State, Nos. DA 06-0239 and DA 06-0413,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw a plea of nolo contendere and a plea of guilty under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2) because he should have raised his theories in the trial court in his original motion, but did not, and thus res judicata applied and he was precluded from raising his arguments currently.
|
|||||
| Quigg v. Slaughter, No. 05-692, No. DA 06-0013,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmates' claim of cruel and unusual punishment under Mont. Const. art. II, § 24 and the Eighth Amendment failed because differences between those things afforded at a state prison and private prisons did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment; the inmates lacked an interest in being housed at the state prison.
|
|||||
| State v. Iafornaro, No. DA 06-0148,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-105(2); defendant did not have to be informed of lesser included offenses not relevant to his decision to enter the plea and nothing showed that defendant was hindered in the ability to enter into the plea voluntarily.
|
|||||
| Williams Feed, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., No. DA 06-0391,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that appellants were not denied unreasonable access to their property; a juror's actions in sharing information with the jury did not amount to an external influence on the jury, for purposes of Mont. R. Evid. 606(b), and another witness was properly prevented from testifying on matters of law.
|
|||||
| 7-Up Supper Club, Inc. v. Talbot Agency, Inc., Cause No. BDV-2003-209,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lohmeier v. Montana Eighteenth Judicial Dist., Docket No. OP 07-0156,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the applicant sued a public agency out of concern that a real estate development threatened his property, he was not entitled to a writ of supervisory control to protect himself from SLAPP counterclaims filed by the agency. While his Rule 12 motion to dismiss was denied, the district court had yet to decide the merits of the counterclaims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
