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 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lenihangreen2 sentences2022State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 , 602 P.2d 997 (1979) provides an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule “and allows appellate review of a criminal sentence that is alleged to be illegal or in excess of statutory mandates, even if the defendant raised no objection in the trial court.” Kotwicki, ¶ 8, citing Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . 2022State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338 , 602 P.2d 997 (1979) provides an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule “and allows appellate review of a criminal sentence that is alleged to be illegal or in excess of statutory mandates, even if the defendant raised no objection in the trial court.” Kotwicki, ¶ 8, citing Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 ; State v. Simpson, 2014 MT 175, ¶¶ 11-12 , 375 Mont. 393 , 328 P.3d 1144 . ¶12 Here, the Municipal Court awarded restitution for an insurance deductible, lost wages, mileage, and property damage—each a category of pecuniary loss expressly contemplated by §§ 46-18-241 and -243, MCA. 2026See State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 ; State v. Simpson, 2014 MT 175, ¶¶ 11-12 , 375 Mont. 393 , 328 P.3d 1144 . ¶12 Here, the Municipal Court awarded restitution for an insurance deductible, lost wages, mileage, and property damage—each a category of pecuniary loss expressly contemplated by §§ 46-18-241 and -243, MCA. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2009See State v. Carter, 2005 MT 87, ¶¶ 13-19 , 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1011 . ¶13 On appeal, Foston makes a brief and conclusory assertion that this Court should undertake plain error review of the Goetz issue, citing Carter. 2009See State v. Carter, 2005 MT 87, ¶¶ 13-19 , 326 Mont. 427 , 114 P.3d 1011 . ¶13 On appeal, Foston makes a brief and conclusory assertion that this Court should undertake plain error review of the Goetz issue, citing Carter. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finleygreen2 sentences2001Finley, 276 Mont, at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 (followed in State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25, 31 , 927 P.2d 1033, 1037-38 ). ¶52 In Finley , as in the present case, the defendant argued that statements made by the prosecution during trial regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence violated his right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination. 2001Finley, 276 Mont, at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 (followed in State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25, 31 , 927 P.2d 1033, 1037-38 ). ¶52 In Finley , as in the present case, the defendant argued that statements made by the prosecution during trial regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence violated his right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
Yabucoa Sugar Co. v. District Court of San Juangreen1 sentence2000See, State v. Whaley (1895), 16 Mont. 574 , 41 P. 852 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whaleygreen1 sentence2000See, State v. Whaley (1895), 16 Mont. 574 , 41 P. 852 . | 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. Grimes
green
2 sentences2026Accordingly, we have recognized that “[o]bjections to jury instructions proposed by the opposing party serve the same functions as evidentiary objections.” State v. Grimes, 1999 MT 145, ¶ 39 , 295 Mont. 22 , 982 P.2d 1037 . 2026Accordingly, we have recognized that “[o]bjections to jury instructions proposed by the opposing party serve the same functions as evidentiary objections.” State v. Grimes, 1999 MT 145, ¶ 39 , 295 Mont. 22 , 982 P.2d 1037 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences2026See State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 ; State v. Simpson, 2014 MT 175, ¶¶ 11-12 , 375 Mont. 393 , 328 P.3d 1144 . ¶12 Here, the Municipal Court awarded restitution for an insurance deductible, lost wages, mileage, and property damage—each a category of pecuniary loss expressly contemplated by §§ 46-18-241 and -243, MCA. 2026See State v. Johnson, 2011 MT 286, ¶ 14 , 362 Mont. 473 , 265 P.3d 638 ; State v. Simpson, 2014 MT 175, ¶¶ 11-12 , 375 Mont. 393 , 328 P.3d 1144 . ¶12 Here, the Municipal Court awarded restitution for an insurance deductible, lost wages, mileage, and property damage—each a category of pecuniary loss expressly contemplated by §§ 46-18-241 and -243, MCA. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Clausell
green
2 sentences2019"The reason for the contemporaneous objection rule ... is to allow the district court an opportunity, where possible, to remedy any error and we will not put a trial court in error where it has not been given such a chance to correct itself, absent an exception to the rule." State v. Clausell , 2001 MT 62 , ¶ 25, 305 Mont. 1 , 22 P.3d 1111 . 2019"The reason for the contemporaneous objection rule ... is to allow the district court an opportunity, where possible, to remedy any error and we will not put a trial court in error where it has not been given such a chance to correct itself, absent an exception to the rule." State v. Clausell , 2001 MT 62 , ¶ 25, 305 Mont. 1 , 22 P.3d 1111 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2001Finley, 276 Mont, at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 (followed in State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25, 31 , 927 P.2d 1033, 1037-38 ). ¶52 In Finley , as in the present case, the defendant argued that statements made by the prosecution during trial regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence violated his right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination. 2001Finley, 276 Mont, at 137 , 915 P.2d at 215 (followed in State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25, 31 , 927 P.2d 1033, 1037-38 ). ¶52 In Finley , as in the present case, the defendant argued that statements made by the prosecution during trial regarding the defendant’s post-arrest silence violated his right to due process and privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences1998State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413 , 417-18 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 . 1998State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413 , 417-18 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.