 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Sedgwick Claims Management, Cause No. ADV-2004-906,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Buss v. Jones, No. 05-326,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the seller and buyer disputed the terms of an oral agreement for the sale of a parcel of real property, the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the seller under Mont. R. Civ. P. 56. The district court improperly substituted summary judgment for a trial on the merits.
|
|||||
| Enright v. State, No. 05-430,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner was convicted of deliberate homicide and arson, petitioner's attorney advised the court that she could find no nonfrivolous issues to support a request for postconviction relief. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.
|
|||||
| Galpin v. State, No. 05-289,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant was convicted of the possession of dangerous drugs and production of methamphetamines after two jury trials, he was not entitled to postconviction relief. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue of double jeopardy; the remaining claims were procedurally barred by Mont. Code Ann. § 46-21-105(2).
|
|||||
| In re Conservatorship of Bryant, Cause No. DG-2005-24,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Kirkland, Cause No. BDR-2001-260,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marriage of Esmay, Cause No. DR-91-75330,
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA COUNTY, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Shiplet v. Magalsky, Cause No. DV-99-156,
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, PARK COUNTY, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Kuykendall, No. 05-468,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-18-241, 46-18-242, 46-18-244, defendant's ability to pay in the future and financial status were not factors in determining whether to impose restitution, the amount ordered was proper, and the imposition of restitution did not violate Mont. Const. art. II, § 22 because the amount ordered was not grossly disproportional.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
