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 1929–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillip R. Morrow, Inc. v. FBS Insurance Montanagreen2 sentences2017The verbal act doctrine does not apply here because the issue is not whether Helen discussed her dispositional intentions with her attorneys—“the existence of statements”—but rather what she told them—“the truth of the matters asserted within [the statements].” Morrow, 236 Mont. at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 ; see also In re Estate of Mead, 2014 MT 264, ¶¶ 23-24 , 376 Mont. 386 , 336 P.3d 362 (holding that the verbal act doctrine applied to the testator’s out-of-court statement acknowledging his signature on the will because “the existence of’ that statement was “material” to determining the validi 2017The verbal act doctrine does not apply here because the issue is not whether Helen discussed her dispositional intentions with her attorneys—“the existence of statements”—but rather what she told them—“the truth of the matters asserted within [the statements].” Morrow, 236 Mont. at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 ; see also In re Estate of Mead, 2014 MT 264, ¶¶ 23-24 , 376 Mont. 386 , 336 P.3d 362 (holding that the verbal act doctrine applied to the testator’s out-of-court statement acknowledging his signature on the will because “the existence of’ that statement was “material” to determining the validi | 1 | 2 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2014Under the verbal act doctrine, “statements may be admitted ‘for the purpose of establishing the fact that the words had been said by the [declarant].’ ” Morrow, 236 Mont, at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 (quoting State v. Collins, 178 Mont. 36, 44 , 582 P.2d 1179, 1183 (1978)). *391 ¶24 Here, what is material is the existence of Robert’s statement acknowledging his signature. 2014Under the verbal act doctrine, “statements may be admitted ‘for the purpose of establishing the fact that the words had been said by the [declarant].’ ” Morrow, 236 Mont, at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 (quoting State v. Collins, 178 Mont. 36, 44 , 582 P.2d 1179, 1183 (1978)). *391 ¶24 Here, what is material is the existence of Robert’s statement acknowledging his signature. | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Estate of Meadgreen2 sentences2017The verbal act doctrine does not apply here because the issue is not whether Helen discussed her dispositional intentions with her attorneys—“the existence of statements”—but rather what she told them—“the truth of the matters asserted within [the statements].” Morrow, 236 Mont. at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 ; see also In re Estate of Mead, 2014 MT 264, ¶¶ 23-24 , 376 Mont. 386 , 336 P.3d 362 (holding that the verbal act doctrine applied to the testator’s out-of-court statement acknowledging his signature on the will because “the existence of’ that statement was “material” to determining the validi 2017The verbal act doctrine does not apply here because the issue is not whether Helen discussed her dispositional intentions with her attorneys—“the existence of statements”—but rather what she told them—“the truth of the matters asserted within [the statements].” Morrow, 236 Mont. at 399 , 770 P.2d at 862 ; see also In re Estate of Mead, 2014 MT 264, ¶¶ 23-24 , 376 Mont. 386 , 336 P.3d 362 (holding that the verbal act doctrine applied to the testator’s out-of-court statement acknowledging his signature on the will because “the existence of’ that statement was “material” to determining the validi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Timothy Overton v. United States
green
2 sentences1978As noted in Overton v. United States, (5 Cir. 1968), 403 F.2d 444, 447 , the verbal act doctrine is technically not an exception to the hearsay rule. 1978As noted in Overton v. United States, (5 Cir.1968), 403 F.2d 444, 447 , the verbal act doctrine is technically not an exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hardwick v. Hardwick
green
2 sentences1929It was not produced as expressive *514 of the husband’s feeling, or as so intimately connected with any act of his as to be part of such act within the verbal act rule; on the contrary it was elicited as a mere narrative by the husband of a past conversation between him and defendant.” The court then comments on the holding in Hardwick v. Hardwick, 130 Iowa, 230 , 106 N. W. 639 , wherein testimony by the wife to the effect that the husband had told her that his father wanted him to leave her was admissible, saying: “This, however, was given as explanatory of a violent outburst of love and weep 1929It was not produced as expressive *514 of the husband’s feeling, or as so intimately connected with any act of his as to be part of such act within the verbal act rule; on the contrary it was elicited as a mere narrative by the husband of a past conversation between him and defendant.” The court then comments on the holding in Hardwick v. Hardwick, 130 Iowa, 230 , 106 N. W. 639 , wherein testimony by the wife to the effect that the husband had told her that his father wanted him to leave her was admissible, saying: “This, however, was given as explanatory of a violent outburst of love and weep | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Melcher v. Melcher
neutral
2 sentences1929In an exhaustive note to Melcher v. Melcher, 102 Neb. 790 , 169 N. W. 720 , found in 4 A. L. 1929In an exhaustive note to Melcher v. Melcher, 102 Neb. 790 , 169 N. W. 720 , found in 4 A. L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.