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.
9 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1919–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Payne v. Knutsongreen2 sentences2007We will not reverse the district court unless the error is “of such character to have affected the result.” Howard, ¶ 17 (quoting Payne v. Knutson, 2004 MT 271, ¶ 20 , 323 Mont. 165, ¶ 20 , 99 P.3d 200, ¶ 20 ). 2007We will not reverse the district court unless the error is “of such character to have affected the result.” Howard, ¶ 17 (quoting Payne v. Knutson, 2004 MT 271, ¶ 20 , 323 Mont. 165, ¶ 20 , 99 P.3d 200, ¶ 20 ). | 2 | 4 |
Christofferson v. City of Great Fallsgreen2 sentences2004We will not reverse the district court unless the error be “ ‘of such character to have affected the result.’ ” Christofferson v. City of Great Falls, 2003 MT 189, ¶ 19 , 316 Mont. 469, ¶ 19 , 74 P.3d 1021, ¶ 19 (quoting In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). 2004We will not reverse the district court unless the error be “ ‘of such character to have affected the result.’ ” Christofferson v. City of Great Falls, 2003 MT 189, ¶ 19 , 316 Mont. 469, ¶ 19 , 74 P.3d 1021, ¶ 19 (quoting In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pedersen v. Dawson County
green
2 sentences2025The court’s reliance on the summary judgment record in determining the punitive damages award does not provide a basis for reversal under the circumstances of this case. “[N]o error by the district court is grounds for setting aside the judgment of the district court unless the error affects the substantial rights of the parties.” Pederson v. Dawson Cnty., 2000 MT 339, ¶ 11 , 303 Mont. 158 , 17 P.3d 393 (citing M. 2025The court’s reliance on the summary judgment record in determining the punitive damages award does not provide a basis for reversal under the circumstances of this case. “[N]o error by the district court is grounds for setting aside the judgment of the district court unless the error affects the substantial rights of the parties.” Pederson v. Dawson Cnty., 2000 MT 339, ¶ 11 , 303 Mont. 158 , 17 P.3d 393 (citing M. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Howard v. St. James Community Hospital
green
2 sentences2017James Cmty. Hosp., 2006 MT 23 ¶ 17 , 331 Mont. 60 , 129 P.3d 126 (quoting Payne v. Knutson, 2004 MT 271, ¶ 20 , 323 Mont. 165 , 99 P.3d 200 . 8 DISCUSSION ¶18 Issue One: Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding negligence per se? ¶19 Maier argues the District Court improperly denied Maier’s motion for summary judgment on negligence per se. 2017James Cmty. Hosp., 2006 MT 23 ¶ 17 , 331 Mont. 60 , 129 P.3d 126 (quoting Payne v. Knutson, 2004 MT 271, ¶ 20 , 323 Mont. 165 , 99 P.3d 200 . 8 DISCUSSION ¶18 Issue One: Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding negligence per se? ¶19 Maier argues the District Court improperly denied Maier’s motion for summary judgment on negligence per se. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences2007“Notwithstanding this deferential standard, however, judicial discretion must be guided by the rules and principles of law; thus our standard of review is plenary to the extent that a discretionary ruling is based on a conclusion of law.” State v. Price, 2006 MT 79, ¶ 17 , 331 Mont. 502, ¶ 17 , 134 P.3d 45, ¶ 17 . 2007“Notwithstanding this deferential standard, however, judicial discretion must be guided by the rules and principles of law; thus our standard of review is plenary to the extent that a discretionary ruling is based on a conclusion of law.” State v. Price, 2006 MT 79, ¶ 17 , 331 Mont. 502, ¶ 17 , 134 P.3d 45, ¶ 17 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In re A.N.
green
2 sentences2004We will not reverse the district court unless the error be “ ‘of such character to have affected the result.’ ” Christofferson v. City of Great Falls, 2003 MT 189, ¶ 19 , 316 Mont. 469, ¶ 19 , 74 P.3d 1021, ¶ 19 (quoting In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). 2004We will not reverse the district court unless the error be “ ‘of such character to have affected the result.’ ” Christofferson v. City of Great Falls, 2003 MT 189, ¶ 19 , 316 Mont. 469, ¶ 19 , 74 P.3d 1021, ¶ 19 (quoting In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Chronopoulos
neutral
2 sentences1952M. 1947, sec. 94-7201, subd. 4, in part provides: “On such settlement of the instructions the respective counsel, or the parties, shall specify and state the particular ground on which the instruction is objected or excepted to, and it shall not be sufficient in stating the ground of such objection or exception to state generally that the instruction does not state the law, or is against law, but such ground of objection or exception shall specify particularly wherein the instruction is insufficient, or does not state the law, or what particular clause therein is objected to. * * * No motion f 1952M. 1947, sec. 94-7201, subd. 4, in part provides: “On such settlement of the instructions the respective counsel, or the parties, shall specify and state the particular ground on which the instruction is objected or excepted to, and it shall not be sufficient in stating the ground of such objection or exception to state generally that the instruction does not state the law, or is against law, but such ground of objection or exception shall specify particularly wherein the instruction is insufficient, or does not state the law, or what particular clause therein is objected to. * * * No motion f | 1 | 1952–1952 |
State v. Cook
neutral
2 sentences1919Section 9271, Revised Codes, provides:, “No motion for a new trial on the ground of errors in the instructions given shall be granted by the district court unless the error so assigned.was specifically pointed out and excepted to at the settlement of the instructions, as herein provided; and no cause shall be reversed by the supreme court for any error in instructions which was not specifically pointed out and éxcepted to at the settlement of the instructions herein specified, and such error and exception incorporated in and settled in the bill of exceptions as herein provided.” (State v. Cook 1919Section 9271, Revised Codes, provides:, “No motion for a new trial on the ground of errors in the instructions given shall be granted by the district court unless the error so assigned.was specifically pointed out and excepted to at the settlement of the instructions, as herein provided; and no cause shall be reversed by the supreme court for any error in instructions which was not specifically pointed out and éxcepted to at the settlement of the instructions herein specified, and such error and exception incorporated in and settled in the bill of exceptions as herein provided.” (State v. Cook | 1 | 1919–1919 |