 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Farmers Coop. Ass'n v. Amsden, DA 06-0569,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a seller sued a buyer for breach of a contract to pay for a gas station and convenience store, the buyer answered and raised counterclaims; M.R. Civ.P. 13(a) barred the seller's separate cause of action suing the buyer for failing to pay for inventory. The seller's compulsory counterclaim had to be raised in the first action.
|
|||||
| Farmers Coop. Ass'n v. Amsden, LLC, DA 06-0556,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a seller sued the buyer for breach of contract to pay the purchase price for a gas station, the district court did not err by denying the seller's untimely motion to amend its complaint to allege that the buyer failed to pay for inventory. The seller did not show good cause under M.R. Civ.P. 16(b) for the delayed amendment.
|
|||||
| In re C.R., DA 07-0278,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly terminated parents' rights; under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 41-3-609(1)(d), 41-3-423(2)(e), the trial court did not need to consider whether they complied with a treatment plan because their rights to another child had been terminated, but the trial court found in any event termination grounds under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-609(1)(f).
|
|||||
| In re K.S., DA 07-0203,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother had appointed counsel for a year and a half before the State filed a petition to terminate her parental rights and she was represented by counsel throughout the termination proceedings, the district court complied with former Mont. Code Ann. §§ 41-3-607(4), 41-3-422(11)(2003); the mother's due process rights were protected.
|
|||||
| McCarthy v. State, DA 06-0481,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying an inmate's second petition for postconviction relief under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105(1)(b), (2) because one claim of ineffective assistance could have been raised on direct appeal and the inmate's claim of appellate counsel abandonment was not raised in his first postconviction petition and was without merit.
|
|||||
| Schuster v. Joe Seipel, DA 06-0640,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney sued a disbanded corporation and its former board members for $ 41,000 in fees for legal services rendered to the corporation, the corporate veil insulated the board members from any personal liability. The district court did not err in granting the board members partial summary judgment and dismissing them from the action.
|
|||||
| State v. Andersen-Conway, DA 06-0648,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was adjudicated a delinquent youth for sexual assault, when he reached age 18 he was transferred to the district court under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-5-208(1) and placed on probation. The court did not have the authority to revoke his probation when he did not abide by conditions imposed by the DOC that were not in the judgment.
|
|||||
| State v. Bullman, DA 06-0761,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in dismissing defendant's petition for sex offender re-designation under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-509(4); given that defendant was sentenced in 2000, the amended statute did not apply to preclude the petition as the trial court found, and thus reversal and remand were entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Garland, DA 06-0659,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, November 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to modify the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence, for purposes of Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-117, because the written judgment and commitment did conform to the oral pronouncement; a contingency was not satisfied and the original sentence remained effective.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
