offered instruction in Montana

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1993This Court has held that “[i]t is not reversible error for a trial court to refuse an offered instruction unless such refusal affects the substantial rights of the party proposing the instruction, thereby prejudicing him.” Cottrell v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (1993), [ 261 Mont. 296 ], 863 P.2d 381, 387 , 50 St.

1993This Court has held that “[i]t is not reversible error for a trial court to refuse an offered instruction unless such refusal affects the substantial rights of the party proposing the instruction, thereby prejudicing him.” Cottrell v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (1993), [ 261 Mont. 296 ], 863 P.2d 381, 387 , 50 St.

2002The Appellants first direct this Court to Larson v. State (1975), 166 Mont. 449 , 534 P.2d 854 , for the proposition that the mere exclusion of the extractive minerals from this state’s statutory classification system is, by itself, a violation of the Appellants’ equal protection and due process rights.

2002The Appellants first direct this Court to Larson v. State (1975), 166 Mont. 449 , 534 P.2d 854 , for the proposition that the mere exclusion of the extractive minerals from this state’s statutory classification system is, by itself, a violation of the Appellants’ equal protection and due process rights.

1997We have held that “[i]t is not reversible error for a district court to refuse an offered instruction unless the refusal affects the substantial rights of the party who proposed the instruction.” Lacock v. 4B’s Restaurants, Inc. (1996), 277 Mont. 17, 21 , 919 P.2d 373, 375 . *150 MMPI contends that the District Court committed reversible error when it refused to give the following instruction regarding the statutory language of § 28-2-904, MCA.

1997We have held that “[i]t is not reversible error for a district court to refuse an offered instruction unless the refusal affects the substantial rights of the party who proposed the instruction.” Lacock v. 4B’s Restaurants, Inc. (1996), 277 Mont. 17, 21 , 919 P.2d 373, 375 . *150 MMPI contends that the District Court committed reversible error when it refused to give the following instruction regarding the statutory language of § 28-2-904, MCA.

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1989A party is not prejudiced by the failure to give an offered instruction where the subject matter is adequately covered by other instructions submitted by the court to the jury.” Payne v. Sorenson (1979), 183 Mont. 323, 327-328 , 599 P.2d 362, 365 ; Kuchan v. Harvey (1978), 179 Mont. 7 , 585 P.2d 1298 ; Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds (1961), 139 Mont. 75 , 360 P.2d 412 . *349 We hold that the instruction adopted by the court was adequate in directing the jury that the defendants could not place the blame for liability on Fergus or Simonfy.

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931(Gordon v. Burris, 153 Mo. 223 , 54 S. W. 546 ; Barron v. Reardon, 137 Md. 308 , 113 Atl. 283 ; Hoelscher v. Hoelscher, 322 Ill. 406 , 153 N. E. 662 ; Talbott v. Giltner, 179 Ky. 571 , 200 S. W. 913 ; In re Carr’s Will, 121 Or. 574 , 256 Pac. 390 ; In re Crockett’s Will, 86 Misc.

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931The court having, without objection, instructed the jury on [5, 6] the subject of undue influence in accordance with the law as declared in Hale v. Smith , 73 Mont. 481 , 237 P. 214 , refused the following offered instruction: *Page 399 "To establish undue influence on the part of Walter S. Bright and Flora Adele Langdon over the mind of the said Georgana Bright, and that the signing of the paper in controversy was induced and brought about by such influence, it is not necessary to show that the said Walter S. Bright or Flora Adele Langdon purposely practiced a fraud on the said Georgana Brigh

1931The court having, without objection, instructed the jury on [5, 6] the subject of undue influence in accordance with the law as declared in Hale v. Smith , 73 Mont. 481 , 237 P. 214 , refused the following offered instruction: *Page 399 "To establish undue influence on the part of Walter S. Bright and Flora Adele Langdon over the mind of the said Georgana Bright, and that the signing of the paper in controversy was induced and brought about by such influence, it is not necessary to show that the said Walter S. Bright or Flora Adele Langdon purposely practiced a fraud on the said Georgana Brigh

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931(State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74 , 212 Pac. 504 ; State v. Yegen, 86 Mont. 251 , 283 Pac. 210 ; State v. Broell, 87 Mont. 284 , 286 Pac. 1108 .)” The offered instruction was properly refused.

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

1931Again, in contradistinction to the implication contained in the offered instruction: "To defeat a will the undue influence must have been directed toward the particular testamentary act at the time thereof, or so near thereto as to be operative." ( Murphy v. Nett , 47 Mont. 38 , 130 P. 451 ; Hale v. Smith , above.) A reasonable deduction from the record is that Mrs. Bright was influenced in the disposition of her property by love and affection for Walter S. Bright, and gratitude for services well performed by Miss Langdon, but such influence is not within the rule with respect to undue influen

2002Swanson, 222 Mont. at 360-61 , 722 P.2d at 1157 .

2002Swanson, 222 Mont. at 360-61 , 722 P.2d at 1157 .

2002Newbauer v. Hinebauch, 1998 MT 115, ¶ 15 , 288 Mont. 482, ¶ 15 , 958 P.2d 705, ¶ 15 .

2002Newbauer v. Hinebauch, 1998 MT 115, ¶ 15 , 288 Mont. 482, ¶ 15 , 958 P.2d 705, ¶ 15 .

1996Orman, 731 P.2d at 893 .

1996Ganz, 903 P.2d at 216 ; Barthule, 886 P.2d at 977.

1995Klinkhammer, 846 P.2d at 1010 .

1995"It is not reversible error for a trial court to refuse to give an offered instruction unless such refusal affects the substantial rights of the party proposing 8 the instruction, thereby prejudicing him." King v. Zimmerman (1994), 266 Mont. 54, 64 , 878 P.2d 895, 902 .

1995"It is not reversible error for a trial court to refuse to give an offered instruction unless such refusal affects the substantial rights of the party proposing 8 the instruction, thereby prejudicing him." King v. Zimmerman (1994), 266 Mont. 54, 64 , 878 P.2d 895, 902 .

1995Newville v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (1994), 267 Mont. 237, 255-56 , 883 P.2d 793, 804 .

1995Newville v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (1994), 267 Mont. 237, 255-56 , 883 P.2d 793, 804 .

1988Doble v. Lincoln County Title Co. (Mont. 1985), [ 215 Mont. 1 ,] 692 P.2d 1267, 1271 , 42 St.Rep. 128 , 132.

1988Doble v. Lincoln County Title Co. (Mont. 1985), [ 215 Mont. 1 ,] 692 P.2d 1267, 1271 , 42 St.Rep. 128 , 132.

1988He bases this instruction upon State v. Keckonen (1938), 107 Mont. 253 , 84 P.2d 341 .

1988He bases this instruction upon State v. Keckonen (1938), 107 Mont. 253 , 84 P.2d 341 .