 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Marriage of Dirnberger, No. 05-495,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution, the district court properly valued the marital residence, excluded the husband's business assets from the marital estate, and denied the wife's request for spousal support under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-203(1). The court erred by failing to address the $ 7,500.00 the husband paid the wife pursuant to a stipulation agreement.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. DA 06-0295,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following an automobile collision, the insured was not entitled to relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 27-8-102, to determine whether the collateral source rule was applicable during settlement negotiations with the insurance company. The insured failed to present a justiciable controversy.
|
|||||
| State v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-448,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granted insurer one and insurer two summary judgment in connection with an insured's action seeking coverage for expenses incurred in preparing for computer issues associated with the new millennium, as such expenses were clearly excluded by the policies, specifically inherent vice and faulty design exclusions.
|
|||||
| State v. Bjork, No. 05-500,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court rejected defendant's claim that the trial court should have dismissed a theft count of an amended information on double jeopardy grounds under the Fifth Amendment and Mont. Const. art. II, § 24 because the State was not precluded from charging defendant under a theory of separate offenses that took place during different periods of time.
|
|||||
| In re Parenting of Jungers, Cause No. CDR-2007-69,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marriage of Roberts, Cause No. CDR-2001-209,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, March 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Teets, Cause No. DC-06-160(A),
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, FLATHEAD COUNTY, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hammer v. State, Cause No. DV-05-299,
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, RAVALLI COUNTY, April 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
