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.
13 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Finleygreen2 sentences2010Opinion, ¶ 17. ¶34 Implicit in our statement that we apply the doctrine of plain error review “sparingly,” Finley, 276 Mont. at 138 , 915 P.2d at 215 , is the reality that many claims which have merit (had they been properly preserved for appellate review) will not satisfy the high standard set by the three Finley criteria. 2010Opinion, ¶ 17. ¶34 Implicit in our statement that we apply the doctrine of plain error review “sparingly,” Finley, 276 Mont. at 138 , 915 P.2d at 215 , is the reality that many claims which have merit (had they been properly preserved for appellate review) will not satisfy the high standard set by the three Finley criteria. | 1 | 6 |
State v. D. Iversongreen2 sentences2022See State v. Iverson, 2018 MT 27, ¶ 11 , 390 Mont. 260 , 411 P.3d 1284 ; State v. Geren, 2012 MT 307, ¶ 28 , 367 Mont. 437 , 291 P.3d 1144 . 2022See State v. Iverson, 2018 MT 27, ¶ 11 , 390 Mont. 260 , 411 P.3d 1284 ; State v. Geren, 2012 MT 307, ¶ 28 , 367 Mont. 437 , 291 P.3d 1144 . | 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. Hagen
green
2 sentences2026Johnson, ¶ 13; Raugust, ¶ 19; Hagen, 283 Mont. at 159 , 939 P.2d at 996 . 2026Johnson, ¶ 13; Raugust, ¶ 19; Hagen, 283 Mont. at 159 , 939 P.2d at 996 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. W. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2025“The cumulative error doctrine applies only when an appellant establishes multiple errors that collectively prejudice his due process rights.” Marfuta, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Cunningham, 2018 MT 56, ¶ 32 , 390 Mont. 408 , 414 P.3d 289 ). 2025“The cumulative error doctrine applies only when an appellant establishes multiple errors that collectively prejudice his due process rights.” Marfuta, ¶ 21 (citing State v. Cunningham, 2018 MT 56, ¶ 32 , 390 Mont. 408 , 414 P.3d 289 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. M. George
green
2 sentences2025We apply the doctrine of plain error review “sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case.” State v. George, 2020 MT 56, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (internal quotations omitted). 2025We apply the doctrine of plain error review “sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case.” State v. George, 2020 MT 56, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Joseph Geren
neutral
2 sentences2022See State v. Iverson, 2018 MT 27, ¶ 11 , 390 Mont. 260 , 411 P.3d 1284 ; State v. Geren, 2012 MT 307, ¶ 28 , 367 Mont. 437 , 291 P.3d 1144 . 2022See State v. Iverson, 2018 MT 27, ¶ 11 , 390 Mont. 260 , 411 P.3d 1284 ; State v. Geren, 2012 MT 307, ¶ 28 , 367 Mont. 437 , 291 P.3d 1144 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2021To invoke this Court’s common-law doctrine of plain-error review, Strizich must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right and (2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” Favel, ¶ 24 (quoting State v. Daniels, 2011 MT 278, ¶ 32 , 362 Mont. 426 , 265 P.3d 623 ). ¶45 Strizich first claims that the District Court erred in instructing the jury on Count II, Acc 2021To invoke this Court’s common-law doctrine of plain-error review, Strizich must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right and (2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” Favel, ¶ 24 (quoting State v. Daniels, 2011 MT 278, ¶ 32 , 362 Mont. 426 , 265 P.3d 623 ). ¶45 Strizich first claims that the District Court erred in instructing the jury on Count II, Acc | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lenihan
green
2 sentences2017(Emphasis added.) 3 Otto did not object to the District Court’s comment during the sentencing hearing, and seeks review of the issue pursuant to State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 , 602 P.2d 997 (1979), or, alternatively, pursuant to the doctrine of plain error review. 2017(Emphasis added.) 3 Otto did not object to the District Court’s comment during the sentencing hearing, and seeks review of the issue pursuant to State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 , 602 P.2d 997 (1979), or, alternatively, pursuant to the doctrine of plain error review. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Adgerson
green
2 sentences2008State v. Adgerson, 2003 MT 284, ¶ 12 , 318 Mont. 22, ¶ 12 , 78 P.3d 850, ¶ 12 . ¶48 An exception to this general rule is our common-law doctrine of plain error review. 2008State v. Adgerson, 2003 MT 284, ¶ 12 , 318 Mont. 22, ¶ 12 , 78 P.3d 850, ¶ 12 . ¶48 An exception to this general rule is our common-law doctrine of plain error review. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ford v. State
green
2 sentences2007However, we consistently apply the statutory procedural bar “in order to prevent the abuse of postconviction relief by criminal defendants who would substitute those proceedings for direct appeal.” Ford v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14 , 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14 , 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 . 2007However, we consistently apply the statutory procedural bar “in order to prevent the abuse of postconviction relief by criminal defendants who would substitute those proceedings for direct appeal.” Ford v. State, 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14 , 327 Mont. 378, ¶ 14 , 114 P.3d 244, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gallagher
green
2 sentences2005State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 ). 2005State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.