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 1923–2007 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Olmstedgreen2 sentences2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri 2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fosheegreen2 sentences2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri 2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooneygreen2 sentences2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri 2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri | 1 | 1 |
Aetna Life Insurance v. McElvaingreen2 sentences1986See e.g., Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. McElvain (Mont. 1986), [ 221 Mont. 138 ,] 717 P.2d 1081 , 43 St.Rep. 697 . 1986See e.g., Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. McElvain (Mont. 1986), [ 221 Mont. 138 ,] 717 P.2d 1081 , 43 St.Rep. 697 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allisongreen2 sentences1964In State v. Allison, 116 Mont. 352, at p. 355 , 153 P.2d 141, at pp. 142, 143 , this court said: "* * * In holding an inquest the coroner acts judicially. 1964In State v. Allison, 116 Mont. 352, at p. 355 , 153 P.2d 141, at pp. 142, 143 , this court said: "* * * In holding an inquest the coroner acts judicially. | 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. Beall
green
2 sentences2007For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 (“The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation.”), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) (“A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her right to a speedy trial.”), and State v. Mooney, 2006 MT 121, ¶ 17 , 332 Mont. 249, ¶ 17 2007We reaffirm this holding as a requirement of the State's proof under Factor Four. [9] For this reason, we overrule our statements to the contrary in State v. Olmsted, 1998 MT 301, ¶ 55 , 292 Mont. 66, ¶ 55 , 968 P.2d 1154, ¶ 55 ("The fourth factor of the Barker test, prejudice to the defendant, must be demonstrated by the defendant before there is a speedy trial violation."), State v. Foshee, 282 Mont. 326, 333 , 938 P.2d 601, 605 (1997) ("A criminal defendant must somehow show that he or she has been prejudiced by the delay before this Court will hold that the State has violated his or her ri | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re the Marriage of Holland
green
2 sentences1988“We have since broadened this holding by applying this test to all cases in which collateral estoppel is at issue.” In Re Marriage of Holland (Mont. 1986), [ 224 Mont. 414 ,] 730 P.2d 410, 412 , 43 St.Rep. 2293 , 2295. 1988“We have since broadened this holding by applying this test to all cases in which collateral estoppel is at issue.” In Re Marriage of Holland (Mont. 1986), [ 224 Mont. 414 ,] 730 P.2d 410, 412 , 43 St.Rep. 2293 , 2295. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State ex rel. Woodward v. Moulton
green
2 sentences1923Woodward v. Moulton, 57 Mont. 414 , 189 Pac. 59 , wherein the former decisions of this court on the subject are collected. 1923Woodward v. Moulton, 57 Mont. 414 , 189 Pac. 59 , wherein the former decisions of this court on the subject are collected. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.