8 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2004 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Unified Industries, Inc. v. Easleygreen2 sentences1999The rule is well established that “this Court will not address either an issue raised for the first time on appeal or a party’s change in legal theory.” Unified Industries, Inc. v. Easley, 1998 MT 145, ¶ 15 , 289 Mont. 255, ¶ 15 , 961 P.2d 100, ¶ 15 (citation omitted). 1999The rule is well established that “this Court will not address either an issue raised for the first time on appeal or a party’s change in legal theory.” Unified Industries, Inc. v. Easley, 1998 MT 145, ¶ 15 , 289 Mont. 255, ¶ 15 , 961 P.2d 100, ¶ 15 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence1995See State v. Reynolds (1990), 243 Mont. 1 , 792 P.Zd 1111. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arlingtongreen2 sentences1994(Emphasis added.) *182 We have stated that where a criminal defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the prosecution’s characterization of the facts during trial, this Court is precluded “from addressing the issue under § 46-20-104(2), MCA, unless the criteria under § 46-20-701(2), MCA, can be met or the comments create an exception to the ‘plain error’ doctrine.” State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 157 , 875 P.2d 307, 325 (citing State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413, 417 , 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 ). 1994(Emphasis added.) *182 We have stated that where a criminal defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the prosecution’s characterization of the facts during trial, this Court is precluded “from addressing the issue under § 46-20-104(2), MCA, unless the criteria under § 46-20-701(2), MCA, can be met or the comments create an exception to the ‘plain error’ doctrine.” State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 157 , 875 P.2d 307, 325 (citing State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413, 417 , 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 ). | 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. Finley
green
2 sentences2000Plain error review allows this Court to discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate fundamental constitutional rights, even if no contemporaneous objection is made and notwithstanding the inapplicability of the § 46-20-701(2), MCA criteria, when failing to review the claimed error “may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 . ¶34 Since we are already reversing and remandi 2000Plain error review allows this Court to discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate fundamental constitutional rights, even if no contemporaneous objection is made and notwithstanding the inapplicability of the § 46-20-701(2), MCA criteria, when failing to review the claimed error “may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Finley (1996), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 . ¶34 Since we are already reversing and remandi | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. LaDue
green
2 sentences2004The State contends that Gray did not argue that any of these statutory exceptions apply and therefore this Court should decline to review Gray’s jury instruction challenge. ¶19 In State v. Kennedy, 2004 MT 53 , 320 Mont. 161 , 85 P.3d 1279 , we stated that, “[a]n objection concerning jurisdictional or constitutional matters must be raised before the trial court... and if the objection is not made, it will not be heard on appeal.” Kennedy , ¶ 28 (citing State v. LaDue, 2001 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 304 Mont. 288, ¶ 28 , 20 P.3d 775, ¶ 28 ). 2004The State contends that Gray did not argue that any of these statutory exceptions apply and therefore this Court should decline to review Gray’s jury instruction challenge. ¶19 In State v. Kennedy, 2004 MT 53 , 320 Mont. 161 , 85 P.3d 1279 , we stated that, “[a]n objection concerning jurisdictional or constitutional matters must be raised before the trial court... and if the objection is not made, it will not be heard on appeal.” Kennedy , ¶ 28 (citing State v. LaDue, 2001 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 304 Mont. 288, ¶ 28 , 20 P.3d 775, ¶ 28 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2004The State contends that Gray did not argue that any of these statutory exceptions apply and therefore this Court should decline to review Gray’s jury instruction challenge. ¶19 In State v. Kennedy, 2004 MT 53 , 320 Mont. 161 , 85 P.3d 1279 , we stated that, “[a]n objection concerning jurisdictional or constitutional matters must be raised before the trial court... and if the objection is not made, it will not be heard on appeal.” Kennedy , ¶ 28 (citing State v. LaDue, 2001 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 304 Mont. 288, ¶ 28 , 20 P.3d 775, ¶ 28 ). 2004The State contends that Gray did not argue that any of these statutory exceptions apply and therefore this Court should decline to review Gray’s jury instruction challenge. ¶19 In State v. Kennedy, 2004 MT 53 , 320 Mont. 161 , 85 P.3d 1279 , we stated that, “[a]n objection concerning jurisdictional or constitutional matters must be raised before the trial court... and if the objection is not made, it will not be heard on appeal.” Kennedy , ¶ 28 (citing State v. LaDue, 2001 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 304 Mont. 288, ¶ 28 , 20 P.3d 775, ¶ 28 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences1994(Emphasis added.) *182 We have stated that where a criminal defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the prosecution’s characterization of the facts during trial, this Court is precluded “from addressing the issue under § 46-20-104(2), MCA, unless the criteria under § 46-20-701(2), MCA, can be met or the comments create an exception to the ‘plain error’ doctrine.” State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 157 , 875 P.2d 307, 325 (citing State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413, 417 , 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 ). 1994(Emphasis added.) *182 We have stated that where a criminal defendant fails to make a contemporaneous objection to the prosecution’s characterization of the facts during trial, this Court is precluded “from addressing the issue under § 46-20-104(2), MCA, unless the criteria under § 46-20-701(2), MCA, can be met or the comments create an exception to the ‘plain error’ doctrine.” State v. Arlington (1994), 265 Mont. 127, 157 , 875 P.2d 307, 325 (citing State v. Rodgers (1993), 257 Mont. 413, 417 , 849 P.2d 1028, 1031 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Halldorson v. Halldorson
green
2 sentences1992However, the plain error doctrine was first considered and applied by this Court in Halldorson v. Halldorson (1977), 175 Mont. 170 , 573 R2d 169. 1992However, the plain error doctrine was first considered and applied by this Court in Halldorson v. Halldorson (1977), 175 Mont. 170 , 573 P.2d 169 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. LaValley
green
2 sentences1987Mr. Smith also contends that the instructions can be reviewed under State v. LaValley (1983), 203 Mont. 393 , 661 P.2d 869 . 1987Mr. Smith also contends that the instructions can be reviewed under State v. LaValley (1983), 203 Mont. 393 , 661 P.2d 869 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.