7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Application of Bertelsongreen2 sentences2022See In re Habeas Application of Bertelson, 189 Mont. 524, 538 , 617 P.2d 121, 129 (1980). 28 Accordingly, based on the essence of the Standing Master’s supported findings of fact— that Mother had established no particular place of residence, as defined by § 1-1-215, MCA, on the Blackfeet Reservation, whether at the commencement of the second child custody proceeding in February 2021 or upon issuance of the Standing Master’s resulting May 2021 custody determination—we hold that, as of May 2021, the District Court had continuing state law child custody jurisdiction under § 40-7-202(1), MCA, to m 2022See In re Habeas Application of Bertelson, 189 Mont. 524, 538 , 617 P.2d 121, 129 (1980). 28 Accordingly, based on the essence of the Standing Master’s supported findings of fact— that Mother had established no particular place of residence, as defined by § 1-1-215, MCA, on the Blackfeet Reservation, whether at the commencement of the second child custody proceeding in February 2021 or upon issuance of the Standing Master’s resulting May 2021 custody determination—we hold that, as of May 2021, the District Court had continuing state law child custody jurisdiction under § 40-7-202(1), MCA, to m | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Guardianship of Aschenbrenner
green
2 sentences2023In accordance with our longstanding command that parties and district courts must identify and adhere to the applicable statutory scheme for consideration and adjudication of a nonparent claim for parental/child custody or visitation right,19 we note that the originally asserted and proper case or controversy at issue from legal standing as a threshold justiciability requirement that claimant have a direct “personal stake” in the claim). 19 See, e.g., D.A.H., ¶¶ 8-14; Girard, ¶ 24; Aschenbrenner, 182 Mont. at 552-53 , 597 P.2d at 1164 . 41 statutory scheme for consideration and adjudication of 2023In accordance with our longstanding command that parties and district courts must identify and adhere to the applicable statutory scheme for consideration and adjudication of a nonparent claim for parental/child custody or visitation right,19 we note that the originally asserted and proper case or controversy at issue from legal standing as a threshold justiciability requirement that claimant have a direct “personal stake” in the claim). 19 See, e.g., D.A.H., ¶¶ 8-14; Girard, ¶ 24; Aschenbrenner, 182 Mont. at 552-53 , 597 P.2d at 1164 . 41 statutory scheme for consideration and adjudication of | 2 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Baer
green
2 sentences2025In re Marriage of Baer, 1998 MT 29, ¶ 18 , 287 Mont. 322 , 954 P.2d 1125 . 2025In re Marriage of Baer, 1998 MT 29, ¶ 18 , 287 Mont. 322 , 954 P.2d 1125 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of K.L.N., YINC
neutral
1 sentence2021We address the termination of Mother’s rights to K.L.N. in a separate, published opinion, In re K.L.N., 2021 MT 56 , ___ Mont. ___, ___ P.3d ___. 2 father and his wife. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re DF
green
2 sentences2020In re D.F., 2007 MT 147, ¶ 30 , 337 Mont. 461 , 161 P.3d 825 (citation omitted); § 41-3-609(1)(f)(i), MCA. 2020In re D.F., 2007 MT 147, ¶ 30 , 337 Mont. 461 , 161 P.3d 825 (citation omitted); § 41-3-609(1)(f)(i), MCA. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Matter of N.W.
neutral
2 sentences2017Therefore, we are limited in our consideration to what was transmitted. 5 ¶9 Regarding Father’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing because the District Court denied his request to attend by telephone, and he claimed that he could not afford to travel to Montana to attend the hearing in person, we previously noted the District Court’s incredulity at Father’s claims of indigence in In re Jardine, 2016 MT 321N , ¶ 5, 386 Mont. 396 , 384 P.3d 1068 , when we affirmed the District Court’s denial of Father’s motion to participate telephonically in the hearing on his motion 2017Therefore, we are limited in our consideration to what was transmitted. 5 ¶9 Regarding Father’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing because the District Court denied his request to attend by telephone, and he claimed that he could not afford to travel to Montana to attend the hearing in person, we previously noted the District Court’s incredulity at Father’s claims of indigence in In re Jardine, 2016 MT 321N , ¶ 5, 386 Mont. 396 , 384 P.3d 1068 , when we affirmed the District Court’s denial of Father’s motion to participate telephonically in the hearing on his motion | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Marriage of Jardine
neutral
2 sentences2017Therefore, we are limited in our consideration to what was transmitted. 5 ¶9 Regarding Father’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing because the District Court denied his request to attend by telephone, and he claimed that he could not afford to travel to Montana to attend the hearing in person, we previously noted the District Court’s incredulity at Father’s claims of indigence in In re Jardine, 2016 MT 321N , ¶ 5, 386 Mont. 396 , 384 P.3d 1068 , when we affirmed the District Court’s denial of Father’s motion to participate telephonically in the hearing on his motion 2017Therefore, we are limited in our consideration to what was transmitted. 5 ¶9 Regarding Father’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to attend the hearing because the District Court denied his request to attend by telephone, and he claimed that he could not afford to travel to Montana to attend the hearing in person, we previously noted the District Court’s incredulity at Father’s claims of indigence in In re Jardine, 2016 MT 321N , ¶ 5, 386 Mont. 396 , 384 P.3d 1068 , when we affirmed the District Court’s denial of Father’s motion to participate telephonically in the hearing on his motion | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.
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.