 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clay Roselle v. Davis, DA 06-0474,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a property distribution in a divorce proceeding, the ex-husband sued the ex-wife's attorney, a law firm, and a licensed appraiser for legal malpractice, malicious prosecution, and fraud. Since the ex-husband's appeal of the order granting summary judgment was without merit, the court imposed sanctions pursuant to Mont. R. App. P. 32.
|
|||||
| Edelen v. Bonamarte, No. DA 06-0543,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision to continue an order of protection was remanded for the entry of findings of fact under M.R. Civ.P. 52(a) since no appellate review was possible where a district court's order merely recited Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-220 and a girlfriend's testimony that she felt threatened. There was nothing to show that the girlfriend was stalked.
|
|||||
| Hartinger v. State, 05-514,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner was convicted of criminal endangerment and related charges after leading police on a chase, he was not entitled to postconviction relief. Counsel's performance was not deficient under the Sixth Amendment because he failed to suppress evidence, failed to file a notice of appeal, and failed to challenge a juror for cause.
|
|||||
| In re B.B., No. DA 06-0672,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother's children were determined youths in need of care based on the mother's repeated aggressive behavior, the mother failed to successfully complete the court approved treatment plan within one year. Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-609(f) permitted the district court to terminate her parental rights.
|
|||||
| In re C.M.R., No. DA 06-0834,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating parental rights was affirmed where substantial evidence supported district court's findings that because parents' skills improved very little, it was not likely that continuing with treatment plans would make a significant difference within a reasonable time.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Snyder, No. DA 06-0325,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In probate proceedings, the district court failed to comply with Mont. Code Ann. § 72-3-906 when it ordered an heir to quitclaim her interest in land back to the estate. The property was not "improperly received" in light of the fact that she would be entitled to at least a one-half interest in the property under any conceivable distribution.
|
|||||
| Mont. v. Cathy Ann Johnson, No. DA 06-0603,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a deputy saw defendant driving across the center line and into his lane, he had a particularized suspicion to justify a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle to investigate a possible DUI offense. The district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by the deputy following the stop of her vehicle.
|
|||||
| Murphy Homes, Inc. v. Muller, No. 05-237,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by denying the homeowners' motions for summary judgment under M.R. Civ.P. 56(c) because, by their own representation, the facts relevant to the homeowners' motions were not uncontroverted.
|
|||||
| Ramer v. City of Billings, No. DA 06-0343,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, June 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a 58-year-old city employee was denied a promotion, he failed to make a prima facie claim under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 621-634. By failing to respond to the city's Mont. R. Civ. P. 36(a) request for admissions, he admitted that the selection committee did not intend to discriminate against him.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
