 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Reavely, No. DA 06-0210,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal prosecution for DUI, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State's motion to exclude defendant's preliminary alcohol screening test (PAST). Defendant failed to establish a foundation for admitting the PAST result, because he did not offer expert testimony on accuracy and reliability under Mont. R. Evid. 702.
|
|||||
| Stokes v. State, No. DA 06-0386,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit for tortious interference with easement rights, the district court did not err by granting the State's motion for cross-summary judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff failed to show that the State's agent acted improperly by offering to pay a landowner for a right-of-way and advising the landowner to consult a lawyer.
|
|||||
| In re Engel, No. 05-174,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney violated Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 for charging an unreasonable fee for his legal services in an uncontested trust termination, and he violated Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15, 1.18 by depositing client funds into his operating account; the matter was remanded for the consideration and recommendation of an appropriate sanction.
|
|||||
| Reisbeck v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. DA 06-0234,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the employee was terminated, he was paid $ 836,000.00 in accordance with his appointment agreement; under the agreement he was not entitled to payment of retained funds. Because the agreement was unambiguous, the district court would not consider parol evidence under Mont. Code Ann. § 1-4-102.
|
|||||
| Shreves v. State, DA 06-0122,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err by denying a petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and claims concerning the resentencing judge were without merit. Petitioner's remaining claims should have been raised on direct appeal and were not appropriately raised in a postconviction proceeding.
|
|||||
| State v. Canal, No. DA 06-0717,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in revoking defendant's suspended sentence under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), given that defendant admitted to violating two conditions of his sentence; because the trial court did not impose a new or original sentence, it was not required to consider the policies set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-101(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Ibarra-Salas, No. 05-600,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant of Hispanic descent was charged with criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, counsel's failure to question prospective jurors about ethnic bias did not deprive defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Defendant was not entitled to a continuance to allow counsel to interview witnesses or prepare for voir dire.
|
|||||
| State v. Skinner, DA 06-0066,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that there was sufficient evidence of sexual contact and paternity for purposes of defendant's incest conviction under Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-507(1), the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict; the trial court's comment, "The Supremes can read it," did not compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
|
|||||
| Clark Fork Coalition v. Mont. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, No. DA 06-0774,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, July 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied a company's motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that it did not receive notice of entry of judgment under Mont. R. Civ. P. 77(d); being an unsuccessful intervenor under Mont. R. Civ. P. 24, the company was not entitled to notice, and the company failed in its obligation to monitor the case's progress.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
