 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ingraham v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. OP 06-0212,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied a charged individual's petition for writ of supervisory control; although he claimed that a retrial on certain charges constituted double jeopardy, the trial court was free to sua sponte order a new trial under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-702(1), given the trial court's error in failing to instruct on a lesser-included offense.
|
|||||
| Rivas v. Mahoney, Docket No. OP 06-0158,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State timely filed its petition to revoke petitioner's deferred sentence within the two-year deferral period, he was not entitled to habeas relief. The fact that the district court did not issue the order revoking his deferred sentence until after the expiration of the two-year period was not a basis for habeas relief.
|
|||||
| Somont Oil Co. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., No. 05-028,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the lack of evidence as to why wells did not operate or whether repairs were undertaken, the trial court erred in submitting the issue of whether cessation was temporary to the jury, instead of granting the lessor's motion for judgment as a matter of law; the lessor was also entitled to fees under Mont. Code Ann. § 82-1-202.
|
|||||
| State v. Ellis, Docket No. DC-05-91,
TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, RAVALLI COUNTY, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Fender, No. 05-730,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted the State's motion to order the filing of a transcript and extend the briefing schedule; for purposes of Mont. R. App. P. 9, the court did not require a written transcript of electronically recorded proceedings in courts of limited jurisdiction that were courts of record, but the record was to be filed as a CD/DVD or analog tape.
|
|||||
| State v. Golie, No. 05-002,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During voir dire in a DUI trial, a prospective juror revealed the issue of DUI was a "sore subject" for him because he had been injured by a drunk driver. The juror showed a lack of impartiality within the meaning of Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-115(2)(j). The district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
