7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Goodwingreen2 sentences2010In the case of Bordenkircher , for instance, the court held that due process “did not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, to bring additional charges against an accused who refused to plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 377 , 102 S. Ct. at 2490-91 (discussing Bordenkircher). 2010In the case of Bordenkircher , for instance, the court held that due process “did not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, to bring additional charges against an accused who refused to plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged.” Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 377 , 102 S. Ct. at 2490-91 (discussing Bordenkircher). | 3 | 3 |
Clipse v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Quoting the Advisory Committee Notes (1983), 97 F.R.D. 165 , the court noted that the rule “imposes on the attorney a duty to make a ‘reasonable inquiry’into the factual basis of a response, request, or objection ...” and that “what is reasonable is a matter for the court to decide on the totality of the circumstances.” Clipse, 808 P.2d at 779 . 1994The court further noted that an objective test is applied and that “[a]lthough the nature of the sanction is a matter of judicial discretion, the rule mandates imposing sanctions if they are appropriate under the rule.” Clipse, 808 P.2d at 779 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Widner
green
2 sentences2013Kelly, 236 Mont, at 527 , 771 P.2d at 144-45 . ¶24 The Court noted that the principle “of doing justice under the circumstances of each case” underlies the unconscionability analysis. 2013Kelly, 236 Mont, at 527 , 771 P.2d at 144-45 . ¶24 The Court noted that the principle “of doing justice under the circumstances of each case” underlies the unconscionability analysis. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Geddes
green
2 sentences2005Booke, 178 Mont. at 233 , 583 P.2d at 410 (citing State v. Geddes (1899), 22 Mont. 68, 89 , 55 P. 919, 926 ). 2005Booke, 178 Mont. at 233 , 583 P.2d at 410 (citing State v. Geddes (1899), 22 Mont. 68, 89 , 55 P. 919, 926 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Booke
green
2 sentences2005Booke, 178 Mont. at 233 , 583 P.2d at 410 (citing State v. Geddes (1899), 22 Mont. 68, 89 , 55 P. 919, 926 ). 2005Booke, 178 Mont. at 233 , 583 P.2d at 410 (citing State v. Geddes (1899), 22 Mont. 68, 89 , 55 P. 919, 926 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Todd
green
2 sentences2001Moreover, we stated in Feight that "a new trial in district court is the exclusive statutory appellate remedy from a justice court and that `[a] district court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the correctness of legal conclusions made by a justice court.'" Feight , ¶ 11 (quoting Todd, 262 Mont. at 113 , 863 P.2d at 426 ). [1] ¶ 11 Section 3-5-303, MCA, provides: Except as provided in XX-XX-XXX, the district court has appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices' courts and other courts of limited jurisdiction in their respective districts as may be prescribed by law and co 2001Moreover, we stated in Feight that "a new trial in district court is the exclusive statutory appellate remedy from a justice court and that `[a] district court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the correctness of legal conclusions made by a justice court.'" Feight , ¶ 11 (quoting Todd, 262 Mont. at 113 , 863 P.2d at 426 ). [1] ¶ 11 Section 3-5-303, MCA, provides: Except as provided in XX-XX-XXX, the district court has appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in justices' courts and other courts of limited jurisdiction in their respective districts as may be prescribed by law and co | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.