7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Whitefish v. O'SHAUGHNESSYgreen2 sentences2014“Fighting words” are “ ‘those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’ ” City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438 , 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (quoting Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 572 , 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942)). 2014“Fighting words” are “ ‘those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’ ” City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438 , 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (quoting Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 572 , 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942)). | 1 | 1 |
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2014“Fighting words” are “ ‘those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’ ” City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438 , 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (quoting Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 572 , 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942)). 2014“Fighting words” are “ ‘those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’ ” City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438 , 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (quoting Chaplinsky v. N.H., 315 U.S. 568, 572 , 62 S. Ct. 766, 769 (1942)). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Massee, ¶ 98 (Regnier & Cotter, JJ., specially concurring) ("I agree with most of Justice Nelson's analysis and conclusion that it is difficult to sustain the Public Duty Doctrine in light of Article II, Section 18, of the Montana Constitution which abolished sovereign immunity in this state."); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241-42 (Alaska 1976) ("[T]he `duty to all, duty to no-one' doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine. ... 2009Massee, ¶ 98 (Regnier & Cotter, JJ., specially concurring) (T agree with most of Justice Nelson’s analysis and conclusion that it is difficult to sustain the Public Duty Doctrine in light of Article II, Section 18, of the Montana Constitution which abolished sovereign immunity in this state.’!); Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241-42 (Alaska 1976) (‘[T]he ‘duty to all, duty to no-one’ doctrine is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine.... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Withrow v. Larkin
green
2 sentences2000They argue that the combination of the investigatory and adjudicatory functions vested in the same individuals who serve on the Commission renders the entire process, even if only in appearance, unfair to the lawyers who are subjected to the process. ¶139 Justice Nelson’s analysis begins with his conclusion that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Withrow v. Larkin (1975), 421 U.S. 35 , 95 S. Ct. 1456 , 43 L. 2000They argue that the combination of the investigatory and adjudicatory functions vested in the same individuals who serve on the Commission renders the entire process, even if only in appearance, unfair to the lawyers who are subjected to the process. ¶139 Justice Nelson’s analysis begins with his conclusion that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Withrow v. Larkin (1975), 421 U.S. 35 , 95 S. Ct. 1456 , 43 L. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. K. Nelson
green
2 sentences2021Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court “stay[ed] execution of the judgment while his appeal is pending” in its September 14, 2016 written Misdemeanor Judgment. ¶3 This Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Nelson’s motion to suppress in State v. Nelson, 2017 MT 237 , 389 Mont. 1 , 402 P.3d 1239 . 2021Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court “stay[ed] execution of the judgment while his appeal is pending” in its September 14, 2016 written Misdemeanor Judgment. ¶3 This Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Nelson’s motion to suppress in State v. Nelson, 2017 MT 237 , 389 Mont. 1 , 402 P.3d 1239 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2014The Municipal Court did not err when it denied Nelson’s motion to dismiss. ¶22 Issue Two: Whether Nelson’s speech constituted “fighting words.” ¶23 The language of the disorderly conduct statute prohibiting use of “threatening, profane, or abusive language” has been construed to apply only to “fighting words.” Section 45-8-101(1)(c), MCA; State v. Robinson, 2003 MT 364, ¶ 9 , 319 Mont. 82 , 82 P.3d 27 . 2014The Municipal Court did not err when it denied Nelson’s motion to dismiss. ¶22 Issue Two: Whether Nelson’s speech constituted “fighting words.” ¶23 The language of the disorderly conduct statute prohibiting use of “threatening, profane, or abusive language” has been construed to apply only to “fighting words.” Section 45-8-101(1)(c), MCA; State v. Robinson, 2003 MT 364, ¶ 9 , 319 Mont. 82 , 82 P.3d 27 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Renner v. Nemitz
green
2 sentences2014Renner v. Nemitz, 2001 MT 202, ¶ 28 , 306 Mont. 292 , 33 P.3d 255 ; M. 2014Renner v. Nemitz, 2001 MT 202, ¶ 28 , 306 Mont. 292 , 33 P.3d 255 ; M. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1998Nelson, 283 Mont. at 244 , 941 P.2d at 450 . ¶89 In the present case, the State’s application for an investigative subpoena set forth facts which demonstrate it had probable cause to believe an offense had been committed and that Ingraham’s medical records contained evidence of the offense. 1998Nelson, 283 Mont. at 244 , 941 P.2d at 450 . ¶89 In the present case, the State’s application for an investigative subpoena set forth facts which demonstrate it had probable cause to believe an offense had been committed and that Ingraham’s medical records contained evidence of the offense. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.