 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Halloran v. Trex Co., No. DA 06-0119,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Montana trial court was required to give full faith and credit to a New Jersey order, for purposes of U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, because the trial court determined that the New Jersey court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and issues raised by the homeowner were not within the trial court's jurisdiction to consider.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. DA 06-0504,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner was convicted of deliberate homicide, he could have raised his claim on direct appeal that Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-203, which prohibited the defense of intoxication concerning mental state, violated his right to defend. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105(2) barred him from raising the claim in a postconviction appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Dasen, No. 05-708,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the items seized pursuant to the first search warrant were ordered returned because the warrants did not particularly describe the items to be seized, defendant was not entitled to suppress items seized pursuant to the second search warrant that was supported by probable cause evidence obtained from a source independent of the first search.
|
|||||
| State v. Grimes, No. DA 06-0421,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying an inmate's motion to file an out-of-time appeal or a second petition for postconviction relief as an appeal was untimely under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-203 and he failed to allege the existence of evidence showing that he did not commit the conduct for which he was convicted, under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-102(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Jumper, No. DA 06-0545,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notwithstanding the court's recognition that the standard of review regarding restitution orders was conflicting, the court found under either standard, the trial court properly determined the amount of restitution as the market value of the snowmobile defendant stole, and thus the court affirmed the restitution order.
|
|||||
| State v. Mondragon, No. DA 06-0469,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of issuing bad checks, the district court erred in refusing to release property held by the State that was obtained during the investigation. The State's concern that he might challenge his conviction was not authority for refusing to return property under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-312, because his appeal was time-barred.
|
|||||
| State v. Vincent, No. 05-563,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to file a brief supporting his motion to suppress within five days as required by Rule 6(c), MURJCC, the justice court did not err in denying the motion as without merit. Defendant waived his claim that the officer's testimony could not be considered as evidence in his DUI case, because the traffic stop was not justified.
|
|||||
| Stock v. Aguilar, No. DA 06-0368,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the father was in jail at the time of the dissolution hearing, the district court issued a child support order against him and later refused to order a paternity test or suspend his child support obligations. Because he was married to the mother while the child was born, he was the presumed father under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-105(1)(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
