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.
26 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2022 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Common Cause v. Statutory Committee to Nominate Candidates for Commissioner of Political Practicesgreen2 sentences2006As the District Court aptly stated in its order granting a stay of proceedings pending the first appeal in this matter, “[o]nce the bell is rung, it cannot be un-rung.” A decision by this Court in the Teachers’ favor would not-indeed, could not-grant them effective relief. ¶14 Implicitly conceding that the issue is moot, the Teachers rely on Common Cause v. Statutory Committee, 263 Mont. 324 , 868 P.2d 604 (1994), in arguing that we should address the merits of this issue under the exception to the mootness doctrine for constitutional questions which are capable of recurring but which could ev 2006As the District Court aptly stated in its order granting a stay of proceedings pending the first appeal in this matter, “[o]nce the bell is rung, it cannot be un-rung.” A decision by this Court in the Teachers’ favor would not-indeed, could not-grant them effective relief. ¶14 Implicitly conceding that the issue is moot, the Teachers rely on Common Cause v. Statutory Committee, 263 Mont. 324 , 868 P.2d 604 (1994), in arguing that we should address the merits of this issue under the exception to the mootness doctrine for constitutional questions which are capable of recurring but which could ev | 2 | 5 |
Grabow v. MONTANA HIGH SCHOOL ASS'N.green2 sentences2006Grabow v. Montana High School Ass’n, 2000 MT 159, ¶ 15 , 300 Mont. 227, ¶ 15 , 3 P.3d 650, ¶ 15 (citing Common Cause, 263 Mont. at 328 , 868 P.2d at 606-07 ). 2006Grabow v. Montana High School Ass’n, 2000 MT 159, ¶ 15 , 300 Mont. 227, ¶ 15 , 3 P.3d 650, ¶ 15 (citing Common Cause, 263 Mont. at 328 , 868 P.2d at 606-07 ). | 2 | 2 |
Turner v. Mountain Engineering and Const., Inc.green2 sentences2012Consequently, while a party is not required to seek a stay of execution, “a party choosing not to seek such a stay runs the risk of having his appeal become moot.” Kennedy , ¶ 34 (emphasis added); see also Turner, 276 Mont. at 60 , 915 P.2d at 803 (“A party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party’s own failure to seek a stay of the judgment.’!). *412 ¶46 With regard to the present case, the Restatement explains that while it is often possible to postpone compliance with an adverse judgment-by a bonding procedure or otherwise-pending 2011However, the District Court, relying on Turner, observed in its September 29 order that “[a] party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party’s own failure to seek a stay of judgment.” Turner, 276 Mont, at 60 , 915 P.2d at 802 . ¶23 Turner, however, does not apply to the case before us. | 1 | 5 |
Turner v. Mountain Engineering & Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2012Consequently, while a party is not required to seek a stay of execution, “a party choosing not to seek such a stay runs the risk of having his appeal become moot.” Kennedy , ¶ 34 (emphasis added); see also Turner, 276 Mont. at 60 , 915 P.2d at 803 (“A party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party’s own failure to seek a stay of the judgment.’!). *412 ¶46 With regard to the present case, the Restatement explains that while it is often possible to postpone compliance with an adverse judgment-by a bonding procedure or otherwise-pending 2011However, the District Court, relying on Turner, observed in its September 29 order that “[a] party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party’s own failure to seek a stay of judgment.” Turner, 276 Mont, at 60 , 915 P.2d at 802 . ¶23 Turner, however, does not apply to the case before us. | 1 | 5 |
Gates v. Deukmejiangreen2 sentences2010Briefly, it is well settled in our mootness jurisprudence that “[a] party may not claim an exception to the mootness doctrine where the case has become moot through that party’s own failure to seek a stay of the judgment.” Turner, 276 Mont. at 60 , 915 P.2d at 803 (citing Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1408 (9th Cir. 1993)); Billings High, ¶¶ 14-18 (citations omitted). 2010“Thus, where a party has failed to obtain-or at least attempt to obtain-a stay of proceedings pending appellate review, that party may not take advantage of the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” Billings High, ¶ 18 (citing Gates, 987 F.2d at 1409 ). ¶104 3. | 1 | 4 |
Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurancegreen1 sentence2021He contends that The Hartford has not met its “heavy burden” to avoid application of the exception because its conduct would allow insurers to “avoid adjudication of this important issue indefinitely by ‘playing chicken’ with injured 3 The court’s stated rationale overlooked the fact that Wilkie sought declaratory relief, which he is allowed “whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” Section 27-8-201, MCA; see also Ridley, 286 Mont. at 330–31, 951 P.2d at 990 . | 1 | 1 |
White v. Leegreen1 sentence2021See Smith v. Univ. of Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000)) (noting that “the voluntariness of the cessation is a factor” in determining mootness, and that the claim in White was moot “because it was clear that the agency’s voluntary change in position was ‘a permanent change’ in the way it did business and was not ‘a temporary policy that the agency will refute once this litigation has concluded’”). ¶19 The District Court thus erred by falling to apply the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine and dismi | 1 | 1 |
cluster 771312green1 sentence2021See Smith v. Univ. of Wash. Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000)) (noting that “the voluntariness of the cessation is a factor” in determining mootness, and that the claim in White was moot “because it was clear that the agency’s voluntary change in position was ‘a permanent change’ in the way it did business and was not ‘a temporary policy that the agency will refute once this litigation has concluded’”). ¶19 The District Court thus erred by falling to apply the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine and dismi | 1 | 1 |
Ridley v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2021He contends that The Hartford has not met its “heavy burden” to avoid application of the exception because its conduct would allow insurers to “avoid adjudication of this important issue indefinitely by ‘playing chicken’ with injured 3 The court’s stated rationale overlooked the fact that Wilkie sought declaratory relief, which he is allowed “whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” Section 27-8-201, MCA; see also Ridley, 286 Mont. at 330–31, 951 P.2d at 990 . | 1 | 1 |
Lunn v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2020Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643-44 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 , 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997)); see also Lunn, 477 Mass. at 526-27 , 78 N.E.3d at 1152 . ¶18 In resolving this case, we first determine whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. 2020Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643-44 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 , 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997)); see also Lunn, 477 Mass. at 526-27 , 78 N.E.3d at 1152 . ¶18 In resolving this case, we first determine whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of CHgreen | 1 | 1 |
Ernesto Galarza v. Mark Szalczykgreen1 sentence2020Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643-44 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 , 117 S. Ct. 2365 (1997)); see also Lunn, 477 Mass. at 526-27 , 78 N.E.3d at 1152 . ¶18 In resolving this case, we first determine whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. | 1 | 1 |
| Strong v. Laubachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Flast v. Cohengreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F.green | 1 | 1 |
| Van Troba v. Montana State Universitygreen | 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 J.S.W.
green
2 sentences2017D.L.B. contrarily asserts that his challenge of the statutory sufficiency of the order falls “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” See, e.g., In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 . 2017D.L.B. contrarily asserts that his challenge of the statutory sufficiency of the order falls “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” See, e.g., In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 . | 4 | 2015–2017 |
Matter of J.S.W.
neutral
2 sentences2017D.L.B. contrarily asserts that his challenge of the statutory sufficiency of the order falls “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” See, e.g., In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 . 2017D.L.B. contrarily asserts that his challenge of the statutory sufficiency of the order falls “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” See, e.g., In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 . | 4 | 2015–2017 |
In re D.K.D.
neutral
2 sentences2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.S.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have determi 2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.8.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have deter | 4 | 2013–2015 |
In Re DKD
neutral
2 sentences2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.8.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have deter 2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.8.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have deter | 4 | 2013–2015 |
In re N.B.
green
2 sentences2013Discussion ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 122 2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 | 3 | 2003–2013 |
Matter of NB
green
2 sentences2013Discussion ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 122 2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 | 3 | 2003–2013 |
Gateway Opencut Mining Action Group v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2020Comm'rs, 2011 MT 198, ¶ 16 , 361 Mont. 398 , 260 P.3d 133 (citation omitted). ¶21 While an issue may be moot, we recognize several exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including the public interest exception. 2020Comm'rs, 2011 MT 198, ¶ 16 , 361 Mont. 398 , 260 P.3d 133 (citation omitted). ¶21 While an issue may be moot, we recognize several exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including the public interest exception. | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Walker v. State
green
2 sentences2021Havre Daily News, LLC, ¶ 32 (quoting Walker v. State, 2003 MT 134, ¶ 41 , 316 Mont. 103 , 68 P.3d 872 ). 2021Havre Daily News, LLC, ¶ 32 (quoting Walker v. State, 2003 MT 134, ¶ 41 , 316 Mont. 103 , 68 P.3d 872 ). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre
green
2 sentences2021The mootness doctrine does, however, contain several exceptions, including “public interest,” “voluntary cessation,” and “capable of repetition, but evading review.” Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215, ¶ 32-33 , 333 Mont. 331 , 142 P.3d 864 . 2021The mootness doctrine does, however, contain several exceptions, including “public interest,” “voluntary cessation,” and “capable of repetition, but evading review.” Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215, ¶ 32-33 , 333 Mont. 331 , 142 P.3d 864 . | 2 | 2006–2021 |
Progressive Direct Insurance v. Stuivenga
green
2 sentences2017Co. v. Stuivenga, 2012 MT 75, ¶ 37 , 364 Mont. 390 , 276 P.3d 867 . [T]he fact that property has changed hands and third-party interests are involved does not necessarily, in and of itself, render an appeal moot. 2017Co. v. Stuivenga, 2012 MT 75, ¶ 37 , 364 Mont. 390 , 276 P.3d 867 . [T]he fact that property has changed hands and third-party interests are involved does not necessarily, in and of itself, render an appeal moot. | 2 | 2012–2017 |
State v. Longfellow
green
2 sentences2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.8.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have deter 2015The matter therefore falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” In re J.S.W., 2013 MT 34, ¶ 11 , 369 Mont. 12 , 303 P.3d 741 (quoting In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 ). ¶12 Whether the failure of the professional person to file a statutorily-required written report in M.K.8.’s civil commitment proceeding was plain error. ¶13 Although we generally will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286 , 194 P.3d 694 , we have deter | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gunderson
green
2 sentences2015State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 99 , 357 Mont. 142 , 237 P.3d 74 . 2015State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 99 , 357 Mont. 142 , 237 P.3d 74 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In re D.M.S.
green
2 sentences2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In Re the Mental Health of D.V.
green
2 sentences2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In the Matter of DMS
green
2 sentences2013Discussion ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 122 2013DISCUSSION ¶11 As a preliminary matter, we note here, as we have done in numerous other cases, that an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot even if the individual has been released, since the issues raised would fall “under the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” In re D.K.D. , 2011 MT 74, ¶ 14 , 360 Mont. 76 , 250 P.3d 856 (citing In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 349 Mont. 257 , 203 P.3d 776 ; In re Mental Health of D.V., 2007 MT 351, ¶¶ 30-32 , 340 Mont. 319 , 174 P.3d 503 ; Matter of N.B., 190 Mont. 319 , 322-23, 620 P.2d 12 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Skinner Enterprises, Inc. v. Lewis & Clark City-County Health Department
green
2 sentences2006Skinner v. Lewis and Clark, 1999 MT 106, ¶ 18 , 294 Mont. 310, ¶ 18 , 980 P.2d 1049, ¶ 18 . ¶15 We recently discussed and clarified application of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine in Havre Daily News v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215 , 333 Mont. 331 , 142 P.3d 864 . 2006Skinner v. Lewis and Clark, 1999 MT 106, ¶ 18 , 294 Mont. 310, ¶ 18 , 980 P.2d 1049, ¶ 18 . ¶15 We recently discussed and clarified application of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine in Havre Daily News v. City of Havre, 2006 MT 215 , 333 Mont. 331 , 142 P.3d 864 . | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Chapman v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences2022It is quite possible that Judge Bolstad did not even see Polich’s petition until after Polich’s release.1 1 Regardless, Rule 2 provides a district court with discretion “to either deny or grant unsupported or unanswered motions.” Chapman v. Maxwell, 2014 MT 35, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 12 , 322 P.3d 1029 ; see MUDCR 2(c) (“Failure to file briefs may subject the motion to summary ruling.” (emphasis 3 ¶7 Alternatively, Polich argues the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine should apply. 2022It is quite possible that Judge Bolstad did not even see Polich’s petition until after Polich’s release.1 1 Regardless, Rule 2 provides a district court with discretion “to either deny or grant unsupported or unanswered motions.” Chapman v. Maxwell, 2014 MT 35, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 12 , 322 P.3d 1029 ; see MUDCR 2(c) (“Failure to file briefs may subject the motion to summary ruling.” (emphasis 3 ¶7 Alternatively, Polich argues the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine should apply. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re C.H.
green
1 sentence2020This Court denied Appellee’s motion and directed the parties to brief the merits of Ramon’s complaint and whether “an exception to the mootness doctrine” applied. 6 DISCUSSION ¶12 Under the Montana Constitution, “physical liberty is a fundamental right, without which other constitutionally guaranteed rights would have little meaning.” In re C.H., 210 Mont. 184, 201 , 683 P.2d 931, 940 (1984) (citing Mont. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Greater Missoula Area Federation of Early Childhood Educators & Related Personnel v. Child Start, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Greater Missoula Area Fedn. of Early Childhood Educators v. Child Start, Inc., 2009 MT 362, ¶ 22 , 353 Mont. 201 , 219 P.3d 881 . 2020Greater Missoula Area Fedn. of Early Childhood Educators v. Child Start, Inc., 2009 MT 362, ¶ 22 , 353 Mont. 201 , 219 P.3d 881 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| New York v. United States green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Printz v. United States green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Povsha v. City of Billings green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Reichert v. STATE EX REL. McCULLOCH green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Larson Lumber Co. v. Bilt Rite Construction & Landscaping LLC green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| MORAWICZ v. Hynes green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In re J.M. neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Butte-Silver Bow Local Government v. Olsen green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Matter of JM green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Shamrock Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Shamrock Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Heisler v. Hines Motor Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.