 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brummer v. Stahl, DA 06-0814,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon the end of a domestic relationship, the district court did not err in its division of the assets such as the mobile home, car, real and personal property. The district court was not required to follow the procedure for dividing partnership assets, because counsel stipulated that the division of assets be based on the parties' contributions.
|
|||||
| Harp v. Matthews, DA 07-0006,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a deputy's incident report related to an altercation between a former federal officer and his neighbor was a privileged publication under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-804, it was excepted from the definitions of libel and slander under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 27-1-802, 27-1-803; the officer's invasion of privacy claim against the deputy also failed.
|
|||||
| Hogenson Constr. of N.D. v. Mont. State Fund, DA 07-0015,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee failed to timely file his workers' compensation claim within twelve months of the accident as required by Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-601, the Montana State Fund had no duty to defend the employer in a claim filed with the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Court. The untimely claim fell outside the employer's coverage under the policy.
|
|||||
| Larsen v. W. States Ins. Agency, DA 06-0802,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action under an employment agreement, the district court properly determined the arbitration clause was valid; however, the court exceeded its authority when it decided substantive issues under the agreement such as the validity of the noncompetition and liquidated damages clauses. Those were issues to be decided by the arbitrator.
|
|||||
| Micklon v. Dudley, DA 06-0414,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because property owners' shop was constructed on a lot unaccompanied by a dwelling house on that same lot, the trial court erred in finding that the shop did not violate the restrictive covenant that limited lots to residential use only, as the court interpreted the covenant under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 28-3-202, 28-3-501.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Doctors' Co., 04-831,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants sued a medical insurer under the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act for failing to settle their medical malpractice claim in good faith in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-201, the district court reversibly erred by excluding evidence of the correspondence between the parties during the settlement negotiations.
|
|||||
| Phelps v. Frampton, 05-098,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For purposes of Mont. Code Ann. § 35-10-405(5) and appellant's breach of good faith and fair dealing claim against respondent, appellant had to show that he was deprived of a benefit created under the partnership agreement or the law, which he failed to do; a constructive trust was not warranted under Mont. Code Ann. § 72-33-219.
|
|||||
| Souther v. Kimberlin, DA 06-0764,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavits were properly considered in a summary judgment motion because the affiants had personal knowledge and the statements therein were admissible under Mont. R. Evid. 803(1); the owners failed to raise any issues of fact as to the elements of a prescriptive easement.
|
|||||
| State v. Fender, 05-730,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of partner or family member assault for injuring her daughter, the record on appeal failed to establish why counsel did not file a notice of the affirmative defense of parental discipline under Mont. Code Ann. § 45-3-107. The district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a new trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Gardipee, DA 06-0806,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, October 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to dismissal of a charge against him for felony partner family member assault in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-206(1)(a), based on two prior convictions of domestic abuse. Defendant did not establish a failure to obtain an express waiver of his right to counsel or any constitutional deficiency in the prior cases.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
