12 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1946–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Driscollgreen2 sentences1998See Nelson, 285 Mont, at 360 , 948 P.2d at 259 (a motion to alter or amend is properly filed to, among other things, “correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was based”). ¶59 Accordingly, I agree with the result which the Court reaches in its discussion of Issue 1, but on the basis that Ian’s Rule 59 motion was, in substance, a motion to alter or amend. . 1998See Nelson, 285 Mont, at 360 , 948 P.2d at 259 (a motion to alter or amend is properly filed to, among other things, “correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was based”). ¶59 Accordingly, I agree with the result which the Court reaches in its discussion of Issue 1, but on the basis that Ian’s Rule 59 motion was, in substance, a motion to alter or amend. . | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences1996However, Zimmerman authorizes us to revisit an issue resolved on direct appeal only "to correct a manifest error in [our] former opinion." Zimmerman, 573 P.2d at 178 . 1990This exception to the general rule is recognized in Montana at least since 1955 when we held that the law of the case announced in the first appeal, and which governed the second trial, does not prevent the appellate court from correcting a manifest error in its former opinion to apply to future proceedings where doing so promised justice without substantial injury to anyone.” (Citations omitted.) *426 State v. Zimmerman (1977), 175 Mont. 179, 185 , 573 P.2d 174, 177-78 . | 3 | 1990–2009 |
State v. Hale
green
2 sentences1978In such cases this Court may correct a manifest error in its former opinion and announce a different ruling to be applied prospectively to future proceedings in the case. * * *” See also, State v. Hale (1955), 129 Mont. 449 , 291 P.2d 229 . 1978In such cases this Court may correct a manifest error in its former opinion and announce a different ruling to be applied prospectively to future proceedings in the case. * * *” See also, State v. Hale (1955), 129 Mont. 449 , 291 P.2d 229 . | 3 | 1977–2002 |
Cluff v. . Day
green
2 sentences1979Thus in Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580 , 36 N.E. 182, 183 , the court said. ‘There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or- which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law. 1979Thus in Cluff v. Day, 141 N.Y. 580 , 36 N.E. 182, 183 , the court said. ‘There is no iron rule which precludes a court from correcting a manifest error in its former judgment, or- which requires it to adhere to an unsound declaration of the law. | 3 | 1946–1979 |
Marriage of Healy
neutral
2 sentences2024Nancy then filed a Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment in which she asserted, citing § 40-4-208(1), MCA, and Healy v. Healy, 2016 MT 154 , ¶ 32, 384 Mont. 31 , 376 P.3d 99 , the District Court made a manifest error of law as “the [child support] modification can only affect payments accruing after CSSD provides actual notice of its motion for modification to all parties.” Nancy asserted the modification could not commence prior to May 6, 2021, without stipulation of the parties 4 and reiterated that she did stipulate at hearing to the start date of April 2021.4 The District Court denied 2024Nancy then filed a Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment in which she asserted, citing § 40-4-208(1), MCA, and Healy v. Healy, 2016 MT 154 , ¶ 32, 384 Mont. 31 , 376 P.3d 99 , the District Court made a manifest error of law as “the [child support] modification can only affect payments accruing after CSSD provides actual notice of its motion for modification to all parties.” Nancy asserted the modification could not commence prior to May 6, 2021, without stipulation of the parties 4 and reiterated that she did stipulate at hearing to the start date of April 2021.4 The District Court denied | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.