State v. Sanchez, 298 Mont. 52 (Mont. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Sanchez, 298 Mont. 52 (Mont. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Blazer v. Wall (mont, 2008-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Blazer v. Wall (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mont. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Benson, 240 Mont. at 179 , 783 P.2d at 925 (citing Majers, 219 Mont. at 370 , 711 P.2d at 1377 ). ¶32 Likewise, in Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass’n, 2000 MT 12 , 298 Mont. 52 , 993 P.2d 688 , the developers of the Virginia City Ranches Subdivision filed a plat which clearly depicted and labeled a bridle path easement crossing the subdivision.
discussed Cited "see" In re Miller
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass’n, 298 Mont. 52 , 993 P.2d 688, 692-693 (Mont.2000); see also Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.3 (“A servitude by necessity lasts as long as the necessity that gave rise to its creation continues....
discussed Cited "see" Udelhoven v. Montana Department of Public Health & Human Services
Mont. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass’n, 2000 MT 12, ¶ 57 , 298 Mont. 52, ¶ 57 , 993 P.2d 688, ¶ 57 . ¶20 Finally, as to McGurran’s statement that a jurisdictional argument may be raised at any time, untimeliness of the request for arbitration would not be jurisdictional for purposes of seeking judicial review in the District Court; it would be jurisdictional only as to the request for arbitration.
discussed Cited "see" Support Obligation of McGurran
Mont. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass’n, 2000 MT 12, ¶ 57 , 298 Mont. 52, ¶ 57 , 993 P.2d 688, ¶ 57 . ¶20 Finally, as to McGurran's statement that a jurisdictional argument may be raised at any time, untimeliness of the request for arbitration would not be jurisdictional for purposes 7 of seeking judicial review in the District Court; it would be jurisdictional only as to the request for arbitration.
discussed Cited "see" Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service Commission
Mont. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass’n, 2000 MT 12, ¶ 30 , 298 Mont. 52, ¶ 30 , 993 P.2d 688, ¶ 30 ; Portman v. County of Santa Clara (9th Cir. 1993), 995 F.2d 898, 902-903 (stating that the basic rationale of the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements) (citations and internal quotations omitted). ¶33 In response to the foregoing, MPC sets forth the rule of statutory interpretation that “it is paramount that we give such construction to the statute as will preserve the constitu…
discussed Cited "see" Cravath v. Ellingson
Mont. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Ass'n, 2000 MT 12, ¶¶ 19-21 , 298 Mont. 52, ¶¶ 19-21 , 993 P.2d 688, ¶¶ 19-21 . ¶15 After reviewing the relevant documents, we conclude that the community access area as created by the Penwell Agreement and as depicted in Deed Exhibit 273, is not a covenant that can be released by affidavit.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF MONTANA
v.
Gregory J. Sanchez
NO. 97-305.
Montana Supreme Court.
Jun 17, 1999.
298 Mont. 52
Hon, Johnson, Langton, Phillips.
Published

On November 14,1997, the defendant was sentenced to life in the Montana State Prison, plus ten (10) years for the use of a firearm - to run consecutively to the life sentence.

On June 17, 1999, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and represented by Kevin Peterson. The state was represented by Joe Coble.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be continued to the August, 1999, meeting, giving the defendant the opportunity to file an appeal if he so desires.

Done in open Court this 17th day of June, 1999.

DATED this 15th day of July, 1999.

Chairman, Hon. Richard G. Phillips, Member, Hon. Jeffrey H. Langton and Member, Hon. Marge Johnson