12 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clemans v. Martingreen2 sentences2003However, we have held that “the extent of such findings and conclusions is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case ... the litmus test in such cases is whether the District Court’s order sets forth its reasoning in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” *142 Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 (citing Clemons v. Martin (1986), 221 Mont. 483, 487 , 719 P.2d 787, 789-90 . 2003However, we have held that “the extent of such findings and conclusions is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case ... the litmus test in such cases is whether the District Court’s order sets forth its reasoning in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” *142 Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 (citing Clemons v. Martin (1986), 221 Mont. 483, 487 , 719 P.2d 787, 789-90 . | 2 | 3 |
Lake v. Lake Countygreen2 sentences2003However, we have held that “the extent of such findings and conclusions is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case ... the litmus test in such cases is whether the District Court’s order sets forth its reasoning in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” *142 Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 (citing Clemons v. Martin (1986), 221 Mont. 483, 487 , 719 P.2d 787, 789-90 . 2003However, we have held that “the extent of such findings and conclusions is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case ... the litmus test in such cases is whether the District Court’s order sets forth its reasoning in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” *142 Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 (citing Clemons v. Martin (1986), 221 Mont. 483, 487 , 719 P.2d 787, 789-90 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Christiansongreen2 sentences2008See State v. Christianson, 1999 MT 156, ¶¶ 36-39 , 295 Mont. 100, ¶¶ 36-39 , 983 P.2d 909, ¶¶ 36-39 . ¶73 This Court has never set forth a litmus test that must be met before a parole-eligibility restriction may be imposed; rather, we have left that decision to the sentencing court’s discretion based on all of the relevant facts. 2008See State v. Christianson, 1999 MT 156, ¶¶ 36-39 , 295 Mont. 100, ¶¶ 36-39 , 983 P.2d 909, ¶¶ 36-39 . ¶73 This Court has never set forth a litmus test that must be met before a parole-eligibility restriction may be imposed; rather, we have left that decision to the sentencing court’s discretion based on all of the relevant facts. | 1 | 1 |
Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp.green2 sentences2006Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp., 2003 MT 372, ¶ 28 , 319 Mont. 132, ¶ 28 , 82 P.3d 912, ¶ 28 (citing Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 ). 2006Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp., 2003 MT 372, ¶ 28 , 319 Mont. 132, ¶ 28 , 82 P.3d 912, ¶ 28 (citing Lake v. Lake County (1988), 233 Mont. 126, 134 , 759 P.2d 161, 165 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snavely v. St. John
green
2 sentences2024John, 2006 MT 175, ¶ 11 , 333 Mont. 16 , 140 P.3d 492 (citing Shammel v. Canyon Res. 2024John, 2006 MT 175, ¶ 11 , 333 Mont. 16 , 140 P.3d 492 (citing Shammel v. Canyon Res. | 4 | 2017–2024 |
Jim's Excavating Service, Inc. v. HKM Associates
green
2 sentences2010Jim’s Excavating Serv., 265 Mont. at 504-06 , 878 P.2d at 254-55 . 2010Jim’s Excavating Serv., 265 Mont. at 504-06 , 878 P.2d at 254-55 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. M. Baty
neutral
2 sentences2022P. 52(a)(1), when a district court acts as the fact-finder in an action tried without a jury, “the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” “The litmus test [under Rule 52(a)(1)] is whether a district court’s order sets forth reasoning, based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” State v. Baty, 2017 MT 89, ¶ 13 , 387 Mont. 252 , 393 P.3d 187 (quoting Snavely v. St. 2022P. 52(a)(1), when a district court acts as the fact-finder in an action tried without a jury, “the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” “The litmus test [under Rule 52(a)(1)] is whether a district court’s order sets forth reasoning, based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review.” State v. Baty, 2017 MT 89, ¶ 13 , 387 Mont. 252 , 393 P.3d 187 (quoting Snavely v. St. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ensley v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1999Lake, 233 Mont. at 134 , 759 P.2d at 165 (citing Ensley v. Murphy (1983), 202 Mont. 406 , 658 P.2d 418 ). ¶24. 1999Lake, 233 Mont. at 134 , 759 P.2d at 165 (citing Ensley v. Murphy (1983), 202 Mont. 406 , 658 P.2d 418 ). ¶24. | 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.