 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Ariegwe, 04-620,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the interval between defendant's arrest and trial was 408 days, the State was responsible for 95% of the delay; however, defendant's ability to present an effective defense was not demonstrably impaired. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Tuttle v. DOJ, DA 06-0757,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a Montana highway patrol officer made sexual advances toward a female trooper and threatened to end her career if she did not end her relationship with another trooper, his conduct constituted sexual harassment and provided cause for his discharge from the Montana Highway Patrol under Mont. Code Ann. § 44-1-612.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. State, DA 06-0365,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Outside the context of a dispute concerning benefits, the Montana Workers' Compensation Court (MCC) lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment stating that the claimant disclosure waiver provisions set forth in Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-71-604(3), 50-16-527(5) were unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Shammel v. Canyon Res. Corp., No. 05-206,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment under Mont. Const. art. II, § 3 and Mont. Const. art. IX, § 1 did not authorize a distinct cause of action in tort for money damages between two private parties where adequate alternative remedies existed under the common law or statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Walker, DA 06-0335,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant entered a plea of guilty to felony bail jumping in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-7-308(1), he agreed to pay restitution to the bail bondsman in exchange for a lighter sentence. He waived his right to challenge the restitution order for the first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Blair v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., DA 06-0069,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an insured filed a claim for declaratory relief, the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment under M.R. Civ.P. 56(c) because it had no duty to defend the insured in a suit for damages caused by the excavation of gravel on his property. The gravel operation did not constitute an accidental occurrence as defined in the policy.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, DA 06-0331,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant filed a motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in seeking postconviction relief without first filing a petition for postconviction relief as required by Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-104, the district court did not err in denying the motion for appointment of counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnston, DA 06-0537,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant entered Alford pleas to the felony and misdemeanor criminal possession of dangerous drugs, he failed to reserve the right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. He was not entitled to assert those issues on appeal, notwithstanding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
