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.
10 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLPgreen2 sentences2024See Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2019 MT 111 , ¶¶ 16–17, 395 Mont. 432 , 443 P.3d 369 (discussing unequal bargaining power). 2024See Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2019 MT 111 , ¶¶ 16–17, 395 Mont. 432 , 443 P.3d 369 (discussing unequal bargaining power). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Forsythgreen2 sentences2024Accord Rosenthal, ¶¶ 35-36 (holding that county attorney had qualified immunity from malicious prosecution claim where plaintiff neither “allege[d], nor [did] the record reveal, the violation of any constitutional right by virtue of” the alleged conduct at issue); Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S. Ct. at 2815 (government officer “entitled to dismissal” of compensatory civil claim due to qualified immunity “[u]nless the [complaint] allegations” are facially sufficient to “state a claim of violation of clearly established” statutory or constitutional law).18 On 18 See similarly Anderson, ¶ 8 (“ 2024Accord Rosenthal, ¶¶ 35-36 (holding that county attorney had qualified immunity from malicious prosecution claim where plaintiff neither “allege[d], nor [did] the record reveal, the violation of any constitutional right by virtue of” the alleged conduct at issue); Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S. Ct. at 2815 (government officer “entitled to dismissal” of compensatory civil claim due to qualified immunity “[u]nless the [complaint] allegations” are facially sufficient to “state a claim of violation of clearly established” statutory or constitutional law).18 On 18 See similarly Anderson, ¶ 8 (“ | 1 | 1 |
City of Whitefish v. Ralph Jentilegreen2 sentences2021See City of Whitefish v. Jentile, 2012 MT 185, ¶¶ 28-30 , 366 Mont. 94 , 285 P.3d 515 . 2021See City of Whitefish v. Jentile, 2012 MT 185, ¶¶ 28-30 , 366 Mont. 94 , 285 P.3d 515 . | 1 | 1 |
Vanskyock v. Twentieth Judicial District Courtgreen2 sentences2021Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(2) provides that a writ of review or certiorari is an extraordinary writ which "shall be commenced and conducted in the manner 2 prescribed by the applicable sections of the Montana Code Annotated for the conduct of such or analogous proceedings and by these rules." "A contempt is civil if the sanction imposed seeks to force the contemnor's compliance with a court order," and provides "the contemnor can end the incarceration or avoid the fine by complying with a court order." Section 3-1-501(3), MCA; see VanSlcyock v. Manley, 2017 MT 99, ¶ 13 , 387 Mont. 2021Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(2) provides that a writ of review or certiorari is an extraordinary writ which "shall be commenced and conducted in the manner 2 prescribed by the applicable sections of the Montana Code Annotated for the conduct of such or analogous proceedings and by these rules." "A contempt is civil if the sanction imposed seeks to force the contemnor's compliance with a court order," and provides "the contemnor can end the incarceration or avoid the fine by complying with a court order." Section 3-1-501(3), MCA; see VanSlcyock v. Manley, 2017 MT 99, ¶ 13 , 387 Mont. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. McCormickgreen2 sentences2020In Moore v. McCormick, this Court addressed a similar situation where an inmate contended he was improperly denied bail pending appeal in a petition for habeas corpus relief, and this Court reviewed "the question of bail independently, pursuant to § 46-22- 103, MCA[1" 260 Mont. 305, 306 , 858 P.2d 1254, 1255 (1993). 2020In Moore v. McCormick, this Court addressed a similar situation where an inmate contended he was improperly denied bail pending appeal in a petition for habeas corpus relief, and this Court reviewed "the question of bail independently, pursuant to § 46-22- 103, MCA[1" 260 Mont. 305, 306 , 858 P.2d 1254, 1255 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Margaret Stewart Jamey L. Paulson William Keith Laura Spencer Lee Callison Stephanie Glowa Terri Gorecki Dan Berryman v. U.S. Bancorpgreen1 sentence2012Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (under federal law, dismissal for failure to plead a cognizable claim is a “judgment on the merits” to which claim preclusion applies). | 1 | 1 |
Larry G. Potter v. John W. Clark, Sheriff of the County of Vermilion, State of Illinoisgreen1 sentence2002See Potter v. Clark (7th Cir. 1974), 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Larson v. State
green
2 sentences2025“A cognizable claim for 3 relief generally consists of a recognized legal right or duty; infringement or breach of that right or duty; resulting injury or harm; and, upon proof of requisite facts, an available remedy at law or in equity.” Larson v. State, 2019 MT 28, ¶ 19 , 394 Mont. 167 , 434 P.3d 241 . ¶7 Denis failed to plead or factually establish the elements of injunctive relief, and he has not met his burden to show why the denial of a parking permit gives rise to a cognizable legal theory such that his claim can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 2025“A cognizable claim for 3 relief generally consists of a recognized legal right or duty; infringement or breach of that right or duty; resulting injury or harm; and, upon proof of requisite facts, an available remedy at law or in equity.” Larson v. State, 2019 MT 28, ¶ 19 , 394 Mont. 167 , 434 P.3d 241 . ¶7 Denis failed to plead or factually establish the elements of injunctive relief, and he has not met his burden to show why the denial of a parking permit gives rise to a cognizable legal theory such that his claim can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Advocates v. State
neutral
2 sentences2025Trust Lands v. State, 2022 MT 46, ¶ 7 , 408 Mont. 39 , 505 P.3d 825 . ¶9 Our law as to the requirements to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is well settled: An asserted claim is subject to dismissal if, as pled, it is insufficient to state a cognizable claim entitling the claimant to relief. 2025Trust Lands v. State, 2022 MT 46, ¶ 7 , 408 Mont. 39 , 505 P.3d 825 . ¶9 Our law as to the requirements to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is well settled: An asserted claim is subject to dismissal if, as pled, it is insufficient to state a cognizable claim entitling the claimant to relief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hope v. Cortines
green
1 sentence1997Thus, the Shieldses’ claim could have been brought under the IDEA and, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f), since relief was available under the IDEA, the Shieldses had to exhaust the IDEA administrative procedures before instituting a civil action in district court. “[P]arties cannot circumvent the IDEA’S exhaustion requirements by asserting claims under other laws while they deliberately avoid asserting a cognizable claim under the IDEA.” Koopman, 911 P.2d at 1053 (citing Hope v. Cortines (E.D.N.Y. 1995), 872 F.Supp. 14, 17 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Koopman Ex Rel. Koopman v. Fremont County School District No. 1
green
1 sentence1997Thus, the Shieldses’ claim could have been brought under the IDEA and, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f), since relief was available under the IDEA, the Shieldses had to exhaust the IDEA administrative procedures before instituting a civil action in district court. “[P]arties cannot circumvent the IDEA’S exhaustion requirements by asserting claims under other laws while they deliberately avoid asserting a cognizable claim under the IDEA.” Koopman, 911 P.2d at 1053 (citing Hope v. Cortines (E.D.N.Y. 1995), 872 F.Supp. 14, 17 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.