time set hearing in Montana

1983On October 1, 1980, the time set for the hearing, the chairperson of STAB announced that the purpose of the hearing on that date would be to determine if, “the Board might find on such hearing that the Department’s method is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful,” quoting from our Countryside decision supra, 613 P.2d, at 695 .

1983On October 1, 1980, the time set for the hearing, the chairperson of STAB announced that the purpose of the hearing on that date would be to determine if, "the Board might find on such hearing that the Department's method is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful", quoting from our Countryside decision supra, 613 P.2d at 695 .

1959Wooten, and the defendant with his attorney, Lee A. Jordan, came into Court, this being the time set' for hearing plaintiff’s Exceptions to Court’s Findings of Fact, etc. The Exceptions were argued by respective counsel and thereafter the Court denied defendant’s Motion to Release Attached property on authority of White v. Corbett, 101 Mont. 1 .” A new motion and affidavit in proper form, apparently filed because Judge Shallenberger felt the informality of the papers, i. e., the affidavit previously filed was a jurisdictional matter, were filed that same day.

1940Interstate Lumber Co. v. District Court, 54 Mont. 602 , 172 Pac. 1030 ); and that the burden of establishing the right to a change of venue is upon the movant.

1940Interstate Lumber Co. v. District Court, 54 Mont. 602 , 172 Pac. 1030 ); and that the burden of establishing the right to a change of venue is upon the movant.

1936If the plaintiff did not know of the association at the time it instituted the suit against Reed, on the filing of his answer at the time set for the hearing, counsel should have asked for a continuance and reframed his pleadings to bring the association into the case to the end that a complete determination of the rights of all interested parties might be had (Reid v. Hennessy Co., 45 Mont. 462 , 124 Pac. 273 ), or the association might have been brought in on order of the court.

1936If the plaintiff did not know of the association at the time it instituted the suit against Reed, on the filing of his answer at the time set for the hearing, counsel should have asked for a continuance and reframed his pleadings to bring the association into the case to the end that a complete determination of the rights of all interested parties might be had (Reid v. Hennessy Co., 45 Mont. 462 , 124 Pac. 273 ), or the association might have been brought in on order of the court.

1930(Driscoll v. Creighton, 24 Mont. 140 , 60 Pac. 989 ; 16 R.

1930(Driscoll v. Creighton, 24 Mont. 140 , 60 Pac. 989 ; 16 R.

1915Cas. 752, 82 Pac. 789 , and was held to include every motion which may be made in a case, except such as may be made during the progress of a hearing; these latter being necessarily excluded, because it was evidently not the purpose of the legislature to permit the interruption of a hearing during its progress, but to require the party to exercise his privilege before the time set for the hearing.

1900Kenyon v. Laurandeau, 21 Mont. 216 , 53 Pac. 536 .

1900Kenyon v. Laurandeau, 21 Mont. 216 , 53 Pac. 536 .