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.
33 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. K & S PARTNERSHIPgreen2 sentences2024Consistent with this standard, we long have recognized that “[d]uring a show cause hearing on a preliminary injunction, the district court should restrict itself to determining whether the applicant has made a sufficient case to warrant preserving a right in status quo until a trial on the merits can be had.” Knudson v. McDunn, 271 Mont. 61, 65 , 894 P.2d 295, 298 (1995) (citing Porter v. K & S P’ship, 192 Mont. 175, 181 , 627 P.2d 836, 839 (1981)). 2024Consistent with this standard, we long have recognized that “[d]uring a show cause hearing on a preliminary injunction, the district court should restrict itself to determining whether the applicant has made a sufficient case to warrant preserving a right in status quo until a trial on the merits can be had.” Knudson v. McDunn, 271 Mont. 61, 65 , 894 P.2d 295, 298 (1995) (citing Porter v. K & S P’ship, 192 Mont. 175, 181 , 627 P.2d 836, 839 (1981)). | 2 | 4 |
Stewart v. Ricegreen2 sentences2016Stewart v. Rice, 2013 MT 55, ¶ 32, 369 , Mont. 203, 296 P.3d 1174 (citation omitted). ¶16 The District Court held a show cause hearing on January 7, 2015. 2016Stewart v. Rice, 2013 MT 55, ¶ 32, 369 , Mont. 203, 296 P.3d 1174 (citation omitted). ¶16 The District Court held a show cause hearing on January 7, 2015. | 2 | 2 |
Werre v. Davidgreen2 sentences2012Werre v. David, 275 Mont. 376, 385 , 913 P.2d 625, 631 (1996). ¶41 Section 41-3-432, MCA, details the requirements for a show cause hearing. 2012Werre v. David, 275 Mont. 376, 385 , 913 P.2d 625, 631 (1996). ¶41 Section 41-3-432, MCA, details the requirements for a show cause hearing. | 2 | 2 |
Letitia v. v. SUPERIOR COURTgreen2 sentences2002See, Letitia v. Superior Court (Dist.2000), 81 Cal.App.4th 1009 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 309 (Common sense construction of the meaning of "active efforts" requires only that "timely affirmative steps be taken to accomplish the goal which Congress has set: to avoid the breakup of Indian families whenever possible by providing services designated to remedy problems which might lead to severance of the parent-child relationship."). 2002See, Letitia v. Superior Court (Cal.App. 4th Dist. 2000), 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 303, 309 (Common sense construction of the meaning of “active efforts” requires only that “timely affirmative steps be taken to accomplish the goal which Congress has set: to avoid the breakup of Indian families whenever possible by providing services designated to remedy problems which might lead to severance of the parent-child relationship.”). | 2 | 2 |
Knudson v. McDunngreen2 sentences2024Consistent with this standard, we long have recognized that “[d]uring a show cause hearing on a preliminary injunction, the district court should restrict itself to determining whether the applicant has made a sufficient case to warrant preserving a right in status quo until a trial on the merits can be had.” Knudson v. McDunn, 271 Mont. 61, 65 , 894 P.2d 295, 298 (1995) (citing Porter v. K & S P’ship, 192 Mont. 175, 181 , 627 P.2d 836, 839 (1981)). 2024Consistent with this standard, we long have recognized that “[d]uring a show cause hearing on a preliminary injunction, the district court should restrict itself to determining whether the applicant has made a sufficient case to warrant preserving a right in status quo until a trial on the merits can be had.” Knudson v. McDunn, 271 Mont. 61, 65 , 894 P.2d 295, 298 (1995) (citing Porter v. K & S P’ship, 192 Mont. 175, 181 , 627 P.2d 836, 839 (1981)). | 1 | 3 |
In Re Kahlen W.green1 sentence2019See Kahlen , 285 Cal.Rptr. at 512 . ¶23 In addition to the parents' assertions of possible Crow Tribe eligibility at the initial show cause hearing in this case, the considerable record colloquy between court and counsel that followed further manifests a reasonable basis upon which to believe that the children may be Indian children, regardless of whether the reason was not uncertain or based on an affirmative evidentiary showing. | 1 | 1 |
McKenzie v. Scheelergreen2 sentences2015See McKenzie, 285 Mont, at 506 , 949 P.2d at 1172 . 2015See McKenzie, 285 Mont, at 506 , 949 P.2d at 1172 . | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. Trullgreen2 sentences2015See Keller v. Trull, 2007 MT 108, ¶ 12 , 337 Mont. 188 , 158 P.3d 439 . 2015See Keller v. Trull, 2007 MT 108, ¶ 12 , 337 Mont. 188 , 158 P.3d 439 . | 1 | 1 |
In re T.S.B.green2 sentences2014See In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23, ¶ 6 , 341 Mont. 204 , 177 P.3d 429 (affirming termination of parental rights at show cause hearing where initial petition requested both termination and determination that reasonable efforts are not required). 2014See In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23, ¶ 6 , 341 Mont. 204 , 177 P.3d 429 (affirming termination of parental rights at show cause hearing where initial petition requested both termination and determination that reasonable efforts are not required). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Tsbgreen1 sentence2014See In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23, ¶ 6 , 341 Mont. 204 , 177 P.3d 429 (affirming termination of parental rights at show cause hearing where initial petition requested both termination and determination that reasonable efforts are not required). | 1 | 1 |
| Sandman v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Heidemagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Butler v. Germanngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marriage of Bradshaw v. Bradshawgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re ANW
green
2 sentences2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o 2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o | 4 | 2008–2015 |
In re L.N.
green
2 sentences2015Section 41-3-432(l)(a), MCA; In re L.N., 2014 MT 187, ¶ 15 , 375 Mont. 480 , 329 P.3d 598 . 2015Section 41-3-432(l)(a), MCA; In re L.N., 2014 MT 187, ¶ 15 , 375 Mont. 480 , 329 P.3d 598 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re As
green
2 sentences2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o 2015Further, we have also often stated that “ ‘we will not fault a district court for failing to address statutory deficiencies that are not brought to its attention during the proceedings because doing so would encourage litigants to withhold objections rather than raise the issues appropriately in the district court.’ ” In re A.S., 2006 MT 281, ¶ 35 , 334 Mont. 280 , 146 P.3d 778 (quoting In re Declaring A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 41 , 331 Mont. 208 , 130 P.3d 619 ). ¶29 On appeal, Mother argues the District Court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days o | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re CMC
green
2 sentences2012In re C.M.C., 2009 MT 153, ¶ 30 , 350 Mont. 391 , 208 P.3d 809 . ¶31 Father argues that effective counsel would have advised him not to stipulate to the treatment plan at the show-cause hearing and would have contested that D.B. qualified as a youth in care. 2012In re C.M.C., 2009 MT 153, ¶ 30 , 350 Mont. 391 , 208 P.3d 809 . ¶31 Father argues that effective counsel would have advised him not to stipulate to the treatment plan at the show-cause hearing and would have contested that D.B. qualified as a youth in care. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Matter of C.C. C.J. C.M.C.
green
2 sentences2012In re C.M.C., 2009 MT 153, ¶ 30 , 350 Mont. 391 , 208 P.3d 809 . ¶31 Father argues that effective counsel would have advised him not to stipulate to the treatment plan at the show-cause hearing and would have contested that D.B. qualified as a youth in care. 2012In re C.M.C., 2009 MT 153, ¶ 30 , 350 Mont. 391 , 208 P.3d 809 . ¶31 Father argues that effective counsel would have advised him not to stipulate to the treatment plan at the show-cause hearing and would have contested that D.B. qualified as a youth in care. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In re M.O.
green
2 sentences2008Y., 2003 MT 241 , 317 Mont. 291 , 77 P.3d 189 ; In re M.O., 2003 MT 4 , 314 Mont. 13 , 62 P.3d 265 ; and In re T.C., 2001 MT 264 , 307 Mont. 244 , 37 P.3d 70 . 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In re T.C.
green
2 sentences2008Y., 2003 MT 241 , 317 Mont. 291 , 77 P.3d 189 ; In re M.O., 2003 MT 4 , 314 Mont. 13 , 62 P.3d 265 ; and In re T.C., 2001 MT 264 , 307 Mont. 244 , 37 P.3d 70 . 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In re B.N.Y.
green
2 sentences2008Y., 2003 MT 241 , 317 Mont. 291 , 77 P.3d 189 ; In re M.O., 2003 MT 4 , 314 Mont. 13 , 62 P.3d 265 ; and In re T.C., 2001 MT 264 , 307 Mont. 244 , 37 P.3d 70 . 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re TC
green
2 sentences2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re MO
green
2 sentences2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re At
green
2 sentences2008In order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, “a party must notify the court at the time the objectionable conduct is at issue.” In re A.T., 2006 MT 35, ¶ 15 , 331 Mont. 155, ¶ 15 , 130 P.3d 1249, ¶ 15 . 2008In order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, “a party must notify the court at the time the objectionable conduct is at issue.” In re A.T., 2006 MT 35, ¶ 15 , 331 Mont. 155, ¶ 15 , 130 P.3d 1249, ¶ 15 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re BNY
green
2 sentences2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 2008That C.B. was not placed at an unfair advantage during the termination proceedings is further evidenced by the fact that he received notice of the termination petition, the District Court held a show cause hearing, he was represented by counsel, and he had the opportunity to present evidence and testimony (though he was not required to do so as the burden was on the State). ¶33 C.B. references several cases in which we held that the district court improperly terminated parental rights where the court failed to receive testimony or evidence at an adjudication hearing— In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241 | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In re T.E.
green
2 sentences2006In In re T.E., 2002 MT 195 , 311 Mont. 148 , 54 P.3d 38 , a father whose parental rights had been terminated raised several issues for the first time on appeal, including an argument that he was denied fundamentally fair procedures when the district court failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days after the initial order removing the children from his home. 2006In In re T.E., 2002 MT 195 , 311 Mont. 148 , 54 P.3d 38 , a father whose parental rights had been terminated raised several issues for the first time on appeal, including an argument that he was denied fundamentally fair procedures when the district court failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days after the initial order removing the children from his home. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In Re TE
green
2 sentences2006In In re T.E., 2002 MT 195 , 311 Mont. 148 , 54 P.3d 38 , a father whose parental rights had been terminated raised several issues for the first time on appeal, including an argument that he was denied fundamentally fair procedures when the district court failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days after the initial order removing the children from his home. 2006In In re T.E., 2002 MT 195 , 311 Mont. 148 , 54 P.3d 38 , a father whose parental rights had been terminated raised several issues for the first time on appeal, including an argument that he was denied fundamentally fair procedures when the district court failed to hold a show cause hearing within 20 days after the initial order removing the children from his home. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Perkins Family v. Tile Guys
neutral
1 sentence2024Bardos appealed the denial, and this Court affirmed, noting that “Bardos presented evidence showing only minor disturbances to the land surface.” Bardos v. Spoklie, 2023 MT 16N, ¶ 9 , 411 Mont. 389 , 523 P.3d 51 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re H.T.
green
2 sentences2021"We will not disturb a district court's decision on appeal unless there is a mistake of law or a finding of fact not supported by substantial evidence that would amount to a clear abuse of discretion." In re H.T, 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 . 11110 Father first argues his right to fundarnentally fair procedures was violated because the District Court granted TLC as to Father and TIA as to Mother at the show cause hearing in violation of the statutes governing dependent neglect proceedings and the Department did not develop a treatment plan for him within thirty days of the 2021"We will not disturb a district court's decision on appeal unless there is a mistake of law or a finding of fact not supported by substantial evidence that would amount to a clear abuse of discretion." In re H.T, 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 . 11110 Father first argues his right to fundarnentally fair procedures was violated because the District Court granted TLC as to Father and TIA as to Mother at the show cause hearing in violation of the statutes governing dependent neglect proceedings and the Department did not develop a treatment plan for him within thirty days of the | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Matter of H.T. YINC
green
1 sentence2021"We will not disturb a district court's decision on appeal unless there is a mistake of law or a finding of fact not supported by substantial evidence that would amount to a clear abuse of discretion." In re H.T, 2015 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 378 Mont. 206 , 343 P.3d 159 . 11110 Father first argues his right to fundarnentally fair procedures was violated because the District Court granted TLC as to Father and TIA as to Mother at the show cause hearing in violation of the statutes governing dependent neglect proceedings and the Department did not develop a treatment plan for him within thirty days of the | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re D.B.
green
2 sentences2019Legal Framework ¶26 In termination proceedings, § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, protects a parent's fundamental right to the care and custody of a child. ***530 In re D.B. , 2007 MT 246 , ¶ 17, 339 Mont. 240 , 168 P.3d 691 . 2019Legal Framework ¶26 In termination proceedings, § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, protects a parent's fundamental right to the care and custody of a child. ***530 In re D.B. , 2007 MT 246 , ¶ 17, 339 Mont. 240 , 168 P.3d 691 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Matter of D.B. and D.B. YINC.
green
1 sentence2019Legal Framework ¶26 In termination proceedings, § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, protects a parent's fundamental right to the care and custody of a child. ***530 In re D.B. , 2007 MT 246 , ¶ 17, 339 Mont. 240 , 168 P.3d 691 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re the Custody & Parental Rights of M.W.
green
2 sentences2002Rather, the court merely concluded that the twins were youths in need of care pursuant to §§ 41-3-102(27) and 41-3-102(18), MCA. ¶10 Julie also contends that the court failed to make a finding as to whether the youths were “abused or neglected” as required by our holding in In re the Custody of M.W., 2001 MT 78 , 305 Mont. 80 , 23 P.3d 206 . 2002Rather, the court merely concluded that the twins were youths in need of care pursuant to §§ 41-3-102(27) and 41-3-102(18), MCA. ¶10 Julie also contends that the court failed to make a finding as to whether the youths were “abused or neglected” as required by our holding in In re the Custody of M.W., 2001 MT 78 , 305 Mont. 80 , 23 P.3d 206 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State Ex Rel. Pay Less Drug Stores v. Sutton green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In Re the Marriage of Hunt green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| J.M. v. Montana High School Ass'n green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Sheridan County Electric Co-Op., Inc. v. Ferguson neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Brady v. State ex rel. State Highway Commission neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Compton v. Alcorn green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Luppold v. Lewis green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Washington Water Power Co. v. Morgan Electric Co. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Timmerman v. Gabriel green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.