 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carter v. State, Docket No. OP 06-0297,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied an inmate's petition for habeas corpus relief; the trial court was not obligated to hold a hearing under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-203(5) because the inmate admitted a breach of at least one of the conditions of his deferred sentence.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Blekkenk, Cause No. DR-05-231,
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA COUNTY, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marriage of Edelen, Cause No. DR-99-426,
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MONTANA, GALLATIN COUNTY, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| O'Leary v. State, No. 05-588,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant was driving without illuminating his headlights, the officer had particularized suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory stop under Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-401(1). The court denied appellant's petition to reinstate his driver's license that was suspended after the traffic stop.
|
|||||
| Raugust v. Slaughter, Docket No. OP 06-0358,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the petitioner failed to show that he placed a petition for re-hearing in the hands of the prison officials before the filing deadline, his petition was treated as untimely. Under Mont. R. App. P. 17, he was not entitled to extraordinary relief to order the Montana Department of Corrections to provide him with a pair of sunglasses.
|
|||||
| State v. Frickey, No. 05-420,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the results of a breath test on an intoxilyzer because more than 13 months had elapsed since the last laboratory certification when defendant submitted the test, contrary to Mont. Admin. R. 23.4.214(1), which required that breath analysis instruments be certified once every 365 days.
|
|||||
| State v. Mooney, No. 05-245,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated by an eighteen-month delay between the filing of his notice of appeal and his sentencing for DUI. The State's evidence was sufficient to show that defendant was "in actual physical control" of a vehicle upon "ways of the state open to the public," under Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-401.
|
|||||
| State v. Schwarz, No. 05-370,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers did not have legal authority to search defendant's home based on consent from defendant's 13-year-old daughter; the court adopted a per se rule that a youth under the age of 16 lacked the capacity or authority to consent to a search of his parents' home, for purposes of Mont. Const. art. II, §§ 10, 11.
|
|||||
| State v. Trull, No. 04-705,
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant purposely hit the victim during a barroom brawl, he was properly convicted of aggravated assault under Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-202(1). Immaterial variances between the victim's pretrial and trial testimony concerning his injuries did not warrant a new trial. The aggravated assault statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
