 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Creveling v. Ingold, No. 05-056,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to the rules of construction under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 28-3-303, 1-4-101, the court found that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the plain language of a restrictive covenant, and the covenant, as written, precluded the placement of any trailers or mobile homes upon the property in question.
|
|||||
| DeShields v. State, No. 05-353,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision to defer an inmate's sentence for four years went beyond the limit in Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-201(1)(a), but only the fourth year was invalid, not the entire sentence; the court did not consider one argument by the inmate because he could have raised the issue on direct appeal, for purposes of Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105(2).
|
|||||
| Dowell v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. HHS, No. 04-155,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DPHHS properly denied petitioner's application to be a day care worker based on a finding in a dependency proceeding that she exposed her children to unreasonable risk; petitioner could not relitigate the issue because collateral estoppel applied. Her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Mont. Const. art. II, § 17 were not denied.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. State, No. 05-418,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's ruling denying an inmate postconviction relief was proper because he was required to raise all grounds in his first petition under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105(1)(a), and simply by renaming his petition a motion for nunc pro tunc or to waive fines did not avoid the procedural bar of § 46-21-105(1)(b).
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Dennison, No. 05-374,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court should have imputed some income to a mother in order to reflect fairly the resources available to support the child, and thus the trial court abused its discretion by failing to account for the mother's voluntary underemployment when calculating child support under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-5-209; the parenting plan was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Hecht, CAUSE NO. DV-04-640,
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, GALLATIN COUNTY, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| S&C Corp. v. Jefferson County, Cause No. DV-05-10432,
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Meckler, No. 05-349,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court had jurisdiction to grant the State's motion to revoke the suspended portion of defendant's DOC commitment for criminal mischief, criminal endangerment, and stalking. Under Mont. Code Ann. § 53-30-105(3), defendant was not entitled to earn good time credit while on probation.
|
|||||
| State v. Morse, No. 04-856,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an anonymous caller reported that defendant was selling drugs, the police went to her apartment, detected a strong odor of marijuana, saw a digital scale box, and four people with prior drug arrests; the facts established probable cause to support a search warrant. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
