 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arkell v. Middle Cottonwood Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, DA 06-0511,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err by granting a variance to homeowners who constructed an addition to their home, since they met the hardship requirement of Section 11.3(e) of the Zoning Regulation. The need to accommodate a family member who suffered from post-polio syndrome was legitimate, and the variance was not injurious to public health.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. State, No. DA 06-0479,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A substituted judge in the underlying criminal proceeding had no authority to rule on a petition for post conviction relief under Mont. Code Ann. § 3-1-804. The post conviction court was required to assign the matter to the judge who sentenced petitioner in the criminal action.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, DA 06-0688,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an inmate's second petition for postconviction relief; he was unable to overcome the one-year filing time limit under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-102 and he failed to establish an abuse of discretion on the trial court's part in not holding a hearing on the petition under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-201(5).
|
|||||
| State v. Case, DA 06-0554,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was legally detained and voluntarily consented to the search, for purposes of U.S. Const. amend. IV and Mont. Const. art. II, § 11, and thus the trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress; the State had particularized suspicion to continue the investigation and thus the consent was not the product of an illegal detention.
|
|||||
| State v. Vaughn, 05-484,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an officer was conducting a welfare check of defendant's vehicle, the officer's observations of an open car of beer, defendant's bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech justified a further investigation; defendant charged with felony DUI was not entitled to suppress evidence resulting from the stop, because there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Hauptman, No. 04-547,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-503, a geologist bound himself to an agreement by accepting the benefits thereunder; for purposes of Mont. R. Civ. P. 16(e), the issue of specific performance, although not pleaded, was included in the pretrial order and the trial court did not err in ordering such, and the new trial motion was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. Stokes, No. DA 06-0121,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial correctly interpreted an easement under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 70-17-106, 70-1-513, and in keeping with contract interpretation rules under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 28-3-204, 28-3-202, 28-3-501, 1-4-101 correctly found that the easement did not encumber the full acres described, but was limited in size and location.
|
|||||
| Beebe v. Mahoney, Docket No. OP 07-0313,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner admitted to violating three conditions of his parole, he was not entitled to habeas corpus relief upon the revocation of his parole. He failed to offer any facts to prove his right to due process was violated or that he was illegally incarcerated, Mont. Code Ann. § 46-22101.
|
|||||
| State v. Hamilton, DA 06-0590,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to a sex offense in Washington in 1996, the 2005 amendments to Montana's Sexual and Violent Offender Registration Act applied retroactively to him. The state supreme court held that the Act did not violate Mont. Const. art. XIII, § 1(3), nor was it an ex post facto law in violation of Mont. Const. art. II, § 31.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
