 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Archer, No. 05-277,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were no restrictions on debtors' use of proceeds from a sale of shares in a business, the debtors were not free to claim such proceeds as exempt benefits under Mont. Code Ann. § 25-13-608(1)(f), even when the proceeds were used exclusively to pay for one debtor's end-of-life medical care and medications.
|
|||||
| In re M.S.S., No. 05-239,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the parents continued to use drugs while caring for their child, the district court concluded that the treatment plans had not been successful and the parents' condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-609(1)(f)(ii). The district court did not abuse its discretion by terminating parental rights.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Webb, Cause No. CDR-2006-111,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| LHC, Inc. v. Alvarez, Docket No. DV-04-662(C),
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, FLATHEAD COUNTY, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lohmeier v. Gallatin County, No. 04-812,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Residents lacked standing to challenge the creation, election, and certification of a water and sewer district because residents did not live in the district or own property therein, they did not have to pay costs associated with the district, and Mont. Code Ann. § 7-13-2212 did not give them standing.
|
|||||
| Scobey Sch. Dist. v. Radakovich, No. 04-675,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A school district dismissed a tenured teacher based on district restructuring and because the teacher was only endorsed in one subject area, and because nothing in Mont. Code Ann. § 20-4-203 or case law precluded such considerations or action, the district did not violate the statute by dismissing the teacher.
|
|||||
| State v. Buck, No. 03-847,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant agreed to a police interrogation, his request for a lawyer before giving a fingernail scraping did not implicate his right to counsel in the custodial interrogation under Mont. Const. art. II, § 25. The district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress his confession to deliberate homicide and burglary.
|
|||||
| State v. Dubois, No. 04-695,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with deliberate homicide in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-102(1), he was not entitled to a specific proximate cause instruction. Any prejudicial effect from the prosecutor's statement characterizing the defendant's testimony as a lie was cured by a cautionary instruction; defendant was not entitled to a mistrial.
|
|||||
| State v. Jenkins, No. 05-399,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying a citizen's petition for writ of certiorari or supervisory control under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-25-102; the citizen failed to show the existence of a legal obligation on a city court's part to quash a valid warrant against him in order to facilitate his placement in a pre-release center.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
