witnesses hearing in Montana

10 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1929–1995 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Medinagreen mont · 1990 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995We have noted that “[i]f the evidence conflicts, it is within the province of the trier of fact to determine which shall prevail.” State v. Medina (1990), 245 Mont. 25, 33 , 798 P.2d 1032, 1038 (citing State v. Brown (1989), 239 Mont. 453 , 781 P.2d 281 ). 1995We have noted that “[i]f the evidence conflicts, it is within the province of the trier of fact to determine which shall prevail.” State v. Medina (1990), 245 Mont. 25, 33 , 798 P.2d 1032, 1038 (citing State v. Brown (1989), 239 Mont. 453 , 781 P.2d 281 ).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Brennan v. Mayo green mont · 1935 2 sentences 1968Collins v. Hodgson, 5 Cal.App.2d 366 , 42 P.2d 700 . “ ‘The reason for allowing such wide discretion in the trial court is aptly stated in Brennan v. Mayo, 100 Mont. 439, 448 , 50 P.2d 245, 249 , as follows: “ ‘Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify. 1968Collins v. Hodgson, 5 Cal.App.2d 366 , 42 P.2d 700 . “ ‘The reason for allowing such wide discretion in the trial court is aptly stated in Brennan v. Mayo, 100 Mont. 439, 448 , 50 P.2d 245, 249 , as follows: “ ‘Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify.	4	1961–1968
Collins v. Hodgson green calctapp · 1935 2 sentences 1968Collins v. Hodgson, 5 Cal.App.2d 366 , 42 P.2d 700 . “ ‘The reason for allowing such wide discretion in the trial court is aptly stated in Brennan v. Mayo, 100 Mont. 439, 448 , 50 P.2d 245, 249 , as follows: “ ‘Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify. 1968Collins v. Hodgson, 5 Cal.App.2d 366 , 42 P.2d 700 . “ ‘The reason for allowing such wide discretion in the trial court is aptly stated in Brennan v. Mayo, 100 Mont. 439, 448 , 50 P.2d 245, 249 , as follows: “ ‘Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify.	2	1961–1968
State v. Brown green mont · 1989 2 sentences 1995We have noted that “[i]f the evidence conflicts, it is within the province of the trier of fact to determine which shall prevail.” State v. Medina (1990), 245 Mont. 25, 33 , 798 P.2d 1032, 1038 (citing State v. Brown (1989), 239 Mont. 453 , 781 P.2d 281 ). 1995We have noted that “[i]f the evidence conflicts, it is within the province of the trier of fact to determine which shall prevail.” State v. Medina (1990), 245 Mont. 25, 33 , 798 P.2d 1032, 1038 (citing State v. Brown (1989), 239 Mont. 453 , 781 P.2d 281 ).	1	1995–1995
State v. Friedman green mont · 1987 2 sentences 1988Stangeland’s arguments are similar to those presented to this Court in State v. Friedman (Mont. 1987), [ 225 Mont. 373 ,] 732 P.2d 1322 , 44 St.Rep. 313 . 1988Stangeland’s arguments are similar to those presented to this Court in State v. Friedman (Mont. 1987), [ 225 Mont. 373 ,] 732 P.2d 1322 , 44 St.Rep. 313 .	1	1988–1988
Huffine v. Lincoln green mont · 1916 1 sentence 1966In finding an involuntary trust the lower court relied heavily on the case of Huffine v. Lincoln, 52 Mont. 585, 593 , 160 P. 820 , 822.	1	1966–1966
Lewis v. Bowman green mont · 1942 2 sentences 1966We stated in Lewis v. Bowman, 113 Mont. 68, 78 , 121 P.2d 162, 167 , that: “In an equity case the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them, and when the evidence, fully considered, furnishes a substantial basis for the findings they will be allowed to stand. [Citing cases.] Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand.” See also Barrett v. Zenisek, 132 Mont. 229 1966We stated in Lewis v. Bowman, 113 Mont. 68, 78 , 121 P.2d 162, 167 , that: “In an equity case the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them, and when the evidence, fully considered, furnishes a substantial basis for the findings they will be allowed to stand. [Citing cases.] Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand.” See also Barrett v. Zenisek, 132 Mont. 229	1	1966–1966
Barrett v. ZENISEK green mont · 1957 2 sentences 1966We stated in Lewis v. Bowman, 113 Mont. 68, 78 , 121 P.2d 162, 167 , that: “In an equity case the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them, and when the evidence, fully considered, furnishes a substantial basis for the findings they will be allowed to stand. [Citing cases.] Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand.” See also Barrett v. Zenisek, 132 Mont. 229 1966We stated in Lewis v. Bowman, 113 Mont. 68, 78 , 121 P.2d 162, 167 , that: “In an equity case the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them, and when the evidence, fully considered, furnishes a substantial basis for the findings they will be allowed to stand. [Citing cases.] Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand.” See also Barrett v. Zenisek, 132 Mont. 229	1	1966–1966
Fitschen Bros. Commercial Co. v. Noyes' Estate green mont · 1926 2 sentences 1942Commercial Co. v. Noyes’ Estate, 76 Mont. 175 , 246 Pac. 773 ; McQuay v. McQuay, supra; McLaughlin v. Corcoran, supra.) Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand. 1942Commercial Co. v. Noyes’ Estate, 76 Mont. 175 , 246 Pac. 773 ; McQuay v. McQuay, supra; McLaughlin v. Corcoran, supra.) Moreover, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the trial judge had the decided advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their testimony and observing their conduct and demeanor upon the stand.	1	1942–1942
Woin v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. green mont · 1935 2 sentences 1935Co., 99 Mont. 163 , 43 Pac. (2d) 663 .) Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify. 1935Co., 99 Mont. 163 , 43 Pac. (2d) 663 .) Here we are permitted to examine only the cold record, whereas the trial judge who granted the motion for a new trial was afforded the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and of hearing them testify.	1	1935–1935
Labbitt v. Bunston green mont · 1929 2 sentences 1929Upon this feature of the case we need not repeat what was said recently in Labbitt v. Bunston (Cause No. 6443), 84 Mont. 597 , 277 Pac. 620 . 1929Upon this feature of the case we need not repeat what was said recently in Labbitt v. Bunston (Cause No. 6443), 84 Mont. 597 , 277 Pac. 620 .	1	1929–1929

Where else courts name it

NY 171 (1959–2026) TX 79 (1879–2025) IL 50 (1896–2025) CA 18 (1920–2023) PA 17 (1914–2026) AL 15 (1929–2009) GA 13 (1921–2020) MI 13 (1936–2018) LA 13 (1926–2017) OH 12 (1970–2022) TN 12 (1975–2020) FL 12 (1962–2013) CT 11 (1933–2009) MO 11 (1889–2025) IA 10 (1906–2026) MT 10 (1929–1995) MS 9 (1980–2026) DC 9 (1976–2020) WI 8 (1934–2024) MD 8 (1926–2011) KS 8 (1909–2007) WA 8 (1894–2021) MA 6 (1962–2023) AR 6 (1960–2015) NJ 6 (1949–2020) IN 6 (1895–2016) OK 5 (1912–1969) RI 5 (1917–2010) OR 4 (1893–1994) MN 4 (1948–1993) WV 4 (1892–1991) KY 4 (1946–2017) VA 4 (1923–1998) NC 3 (1985–2006) UT 3 (1988–2019) NE 3 (1911–1928) ME 2 (1976–1977) WY 2 (2010–2016) ND 2 (1896–1990) DE 2 (1989–1992) SC 2 (1912–2019) HI 2 (1980–2008) AZ 2 (1985–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check