exhaustive analysis in Montana

9 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1926–2009 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Seubert v. Seubertgreen mont · 2000 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Ereth v. Cascade County, 2003 MT 328 , 318 Mont. 355 , 81 P.3d 463 , and Seubert v. Seubert, 2000 MT 241 , 301 Mont. 382 , 13 P.3d 365 , both of which predated the exhaustive analysis of the question of retroactivity published in Dempsey , and addressed again in Schmill II. 2006See Ereth v. Cascade County, 2003 MT 328 , 318 Mont. 355 , 81 P.3d 463 , and Seubert v. Seubert, 2000 MT 241 , 301 Mont. 382 , 13 P.3d 365 , both of which predated the exhaustive analysis of the question of retroactivity published in Dempsey , and addressed again in Schmill II.	1	1
Ereth v. Cascade Countygreen mont · 2003 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Ereth v. Cascade County, 2003 MT 328 , 318 Mont. 355 , 81 P.3d 463 , and Seubert v. Seubert, 2000 MT 241 , 301 Mont. 382 , 13 P.3d 365 , both of which predated the exhaustive analysis of the question of retroactivity published in Dempsey , and addressed again in Schmill II. 2006See Ereth v. Cascade County, 2003 MT 328 , 318 Mont. 355 , 81 P.3d 463 , and Seubert v. Seubert, 2000 MT 241 , 301 Mont. 382 , 13 P.3d 365 , both of which predated the exhaustive analysis of the question of retroactivity published in Dempsey , and addressed again in Schmill II.	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 (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Mitchell v. Town of West Yellowstone green mont · 1988 2 sentences 2002Mitchell, 765 P.2d at 748 . 2002Mitchell, 765 P.2d at 748 .	3	1991–2002
Allen v. Bear Creek Coal Co. green mont · 1911 2 sentences 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i	2	1931–1960
State v. Rose green mont · 2006 1 sentence 2009The evidence of Patrick’s previous assault was offered for the proper purpose of establishing notice, and the expert testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence. ¶22 The District Court imposed a legal sentence within statutory parameters, and Patrick’s arguments concerning the equity of the sentence must be presented to the Sentence Review Division. 5 ¶23 We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision concerning appointment of counsel, State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 , 348 Mont. 291 , 202 P.3d 749 , and evidentiary rulings, including rulings on the admission of other a	1	2009–2009
State v. Rose green mont · 2009 2 sentences 2009The evidence of Patrick’s previous assault was offered for the proper purpose of establishing notice, and the expert testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence. ¶22 The District Court imposed a legal sentence within statutory parameters, and Patrick’s arguments concerning the equity of the sentence must be presented to the Sentence Review Division. 5 ¶23 We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision concerning appointment of counsel, State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 , 348 Mont. 291 , 202 P.3d 749 , and evidentiary rulings, including rulings on the admission of other a 2009The evidence of Patrick’s previous assault was offered for the proper purpose of establishing notice, and the expert testimony assisted the jury in understanding the evidence. ¶22 The District Court imposed a legal sentence within statutory parameters, and Patrick’s arguments concerning the equity of the sentence must be presented to the Sentence Review Division. 5 ¶23 We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision concerning appointment of counsel, State v. Rose, 2009 MT 4 , 348 Mont. 291 , 202 P.3d 749 , and evidentiary rulings, including rulings on the admission of other a	1	2009–2009
Confederated Salish And Kootenai Tribes Of The Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Namen green ca9 · 1982 1 sentence 2002After an exhaustive analysis of the Treaty of Hell Gate, post-Treaty legislation, and Executive branch actions, the Ñamen court determined that the Ñamen family’s title extended only to the high water mark and that the bed and banks of Flathead Lake within the Reservation boundaries are held by the United States in trust for the Tribes. Ñamen, 665 F.2d at 962 . ¶19 Indeed, the determination that the bed of the south half of Flathead Lake is held in trust for the Tribes by the United States has been upheld in every federal challenge.	1	2002–2002
Grief v. Industrial Accident Fund green mont · 1939 2 sentences 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i	1	1960–1960
Greening v. Gazette Printing Co. green mont · 1939 2 sentences 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i 1960“After an exhaustive analysis of the authorities the author of the note in 19 A.L.R. 226 , suggests, ‘ The following brief and simple formula which, as regards its esssential features, is mainly supported by the authorities, is sufficient for the purposes of a general definition,’ and at the same time, he says, is more accurate than most of those discussed in the note: ‘An independent contractor is a person employed to perform work on the terms that he is to be free from the control of the employer as respects the manner in which the details of the work are to be executed. ’ This definition, i	1	1960–1960
Clayton v. Hallett neutral · 1902 1 sentence 1926(Clayton v. Hallett, 30 Colo. 231 , 97 Am.	1	1926–1926
Goad v. Montgomery green cal · 1898 1 sentence 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
Williams v. Marx green cal · 1899 2 sentences 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . 313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
Miller v. Pitman green cal · 1919 2 sentences 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . 313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
More v. More green cal · 1901 2 sentences 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . 313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
Sherman v. Standard Mines Co. green cal · 1913 1 sentence 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
San Francisco Protestant Orphan Asylum Society v. Fitzsimmons green cal · 1922 2 sentences 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . 313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
Wills v. Wills green cal · 1913 1 sentence 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926
Luscomb v. Fintzelberg green cal · 1912 2 sentences 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . 313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c 1926Rep. 145 , 51 Pac. 681 ; Williams v. Marx, 124 Cal. 22 , 56 Pac. 603 ; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489 ; 65 Pac. 1044 .) The decree supersedes the will; * * we are, therefore, to look, not to the terms of the will, but to those of the decree of distribution.” This declaration is followed in Luscomb v. Fintzelberg, 162 Cal. 433 , 123 Pac. 247 , Wills v. Wills, 166 Cal. 529 , 137 Pac. 249 , Miller v. Pitman, 180 Cal. 540 , 182 Pac. 50 , and In re Scrimger’s Estate, 188 Cal. 158 , 206 Pac. 65 . *313 In answer to the contention here made, after an exhaustive analysis of the authorities, the supreme c	1	1926–1926

Where else courts name it

CA 68 (1929–2025) RI 47 (1972–2016) TX 36 (1914–2017) PA 23 (1946–2025) AR 21 (1926–2026) NY 20 (1888–2025) IL 19 (1944–2025) LA 15 (1952–2026) MD 14 (1972–2025) OH 13 (1996–2024) MO 11 (1942–1996) OK 10 (1921–2013) MI 10 (1918–1996) MT 9 (1926–2009) MA 9 (1961–2013) NJ 7 (1935–2010) FL 7 (1915–2005) CT 7 (1979–2016) KS 7 (1975–2024) ID 7 (1963–2008) NV 6 (1938–2017) TN 6 (1972–2018) AZ 6 (1928–2017) WA 6 (1935–2023) AL 6 (1909–2013) VA 5 (1969–2010) WY 5 (1974–1986) WI 5 (1981–2025) OR 5 (1959–1997) SC 4 (1995–2019) IN 4 (1958–1985) NM 4 (2009–2014) DC 4 (1970–2022) CO 4 (1963–1997) IA 3 (1953–1983) NC 3 (1961–2008) WV 2 (1979–2012) MN 2 (1954–1968) DE 2 (1991–2023) SD 2 (1982–1992) UT 2 (1964–1993) KY 2 (1928–2020) NE 2 (1964–2026)

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