Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Stategreen2 sentences2024To support a valid claim, an appropriation of water must be put to beneficial use—it is the “basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to the use of water.” McDonald v. State, 220 Mont. 519, 530 , 722 P.2d 598, 605 (1986) (citation omitted). ¶22 The Schutters argue that the more expansive test for appurtenance described in Pettibone does not apply and that appurtenance should be tested based on the three avenues described in Huckaba. 2024To support a valid claim, an appropriation of water must be put to beneficial use—it is the “basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to the use of water.” McDonald v. State, 220 Mont. 519, 530 , 722 P.2d 598, 605 (1986) (citation omitted). ¶22 The Schutters argue that the more expansive test for appurtenance described in Pettibone does not apply and that appurtenance should be tested based on the three avenues described in Huckaba. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1998For the reasons set forth in my special concurrence in State v. Smith (1996), 280 Mont. 158, 186-90 , 931 P.2d 1272, 1289-92 , 1 conclude, as to issue five (proportionality of the sentence), that under either the restricted Coleman standard or the more expansive standard which I espoused in Smith , the sentence imposed here was not out of proportion to similar cases. 1998For the reasons set forth in my special concurrence in State v. Smith (1996), 280 Mont. 158, 186-90 , 931 P.2d 1272, 1289-92 , 1 conclude, as to issue five (proportionality of the sentence), that under either the restricted Coleman standard or the more expansive standard which I espoused in Smith , the sentence imposed here was not out of proportion to similar cases. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Cannon v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1999Co. (1994), 138 N.H. 365 , 639 A.2d 270 , a case employing the same expansive test as in Dorris . 1999Co. (N.H. 1994), 639 A.2d 270 , a case employing the same expansive test as in Dorris . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Daubert,_U.S. at_, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97 . 1994Daubert , ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.