7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Finleygreen2 sentences2008See State v. Finley (“Finley I"), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 . 2008See State v. Finley (“Finley I"), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gallaghergreen2 sentences2008See State v. Finley (“Finley I"), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 . 2008See State v. Finley (“Finley I"), 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215, ¶ 21 , 19 P.3d 817, ¶ 21 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lenihangreen2 sentences2007Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . ¶26 As the Court notes, Kotwicki objected in the District Court to the imposition of the $25,000 fine; however, he did not base that objection on the legal theory he now raises on appeal-namely, that the District Court failed to inquire whether he had the ability to pay the fine, as required by § 46-18-231(3), MCA. 2007Lenihan, 184 Mont. at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 . ¶26 As the Court notes, Kotwicki objected in the District Court to the imposition of the $25,000 fine; however, he did not base that objection on the legal theory he now raises on appeal-namely, that the District Court failed to inquire whether he had the ability to pay the fine, as required by § 46-18-231(3), MCA. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2011See State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193, ¶ 13 , 357 Mont. 348 , 239 P.3d 929 . 2011See State v. Montgomery, 2010 MT 193, ¶ 13 , 357 Mont. 348 , 239 P.3d 929 . | 1 | 1 |
Ingersoll v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215, ¶¶ 23-30 , 295 Mont. 520 , 986 P.2d 403 (Nelson, Trieweiler, & Hunt, JJ., dissenting). 2009See Ingersoll v. State, 1999 MT 215, ¶¶ 23-30 , 295 Mont. 520 , 986 P.2d 403 (Nelson, Trieweiler, & Hunt, JJ., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
City of Missoula v. Asburygreen2 sentences2008This mantra, however, which the Day court adopted from secondary authority, does not accurately encapsulate the principal purpose of the timely-objection rule. ¶17 Above all else, the rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and “bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity.” City of Missoula v. Asbury, 265 Mont. 14, 20 , 873 P.2d 936, 939 (1994) (citing State v. Applegate, 591 P.2d 371, 373 (Or. 2008This mantra, however, which the Day court adopted from secondary authority, does not accurately encapsulate the principal purpose of the timely-objection rule. ¶17 Above all else, the rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and “bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity.” City of Missoula v. Asbury, 265 Mont. 14, 20 , 873 P.2d 936, 939 (1994) (citing State v. Applegate, 591 P.2d 371, 373 (Or. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Applegategreen2 sentences2008This mantra, however, which the Day court adopted from secondary authority, does not accurately encapsulate the principal purpose of the timely-objection rule. ¶ 17 Above all else, the rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and "bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity." City of Missoula v. Asbury, 265 Mont. 14, 20 , 873 P.2d 936, 939 (1994) (citing State v. Applegate, 39 Or.App. 17 , 591 P.2d 371, 373 (1979)). 2008This mantra, however, which the Day court adopted from secondary authority, does not accurately encapsulate the principal purpose of the timely-objection rule. ¶17 Above all else, the rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and “bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity.” City of Missoula v. Asbury, 265 Mont. 14, 20 , 873 P.2d 936, 939 (1994) (citing State v. Applegate, 591 P.2d 371, 373 (Or. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Muhammadgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). 2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Krollgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). 2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Honeygreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). 2006See, e.g., Lenihan, 184 Mont, at 343 , 602 P.2d at 1000 (“We, therefore, accept jurisdiction in this matter.”); State v. Honey, 2005 MT 107, ¶ 35 , 327 Mont. 49, ¶ 35 , 112 P.3d 983, ¶ 35 (“[Ejven if a defendant fails to contemporaneously object at sentencing, we will accept jurisdiction of an appeal that has been timely filed which alleges that a sentence is illegal or exceeds statutory authority.”); State v. Kroll, 2004 MT 203, ¶ 19 , 322 Mont. 294, ¶ 19 , 95 P.3d 717, ¶ 19 (same); State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 23 , 309 Mont. 1, ¶ 23 , 43 P.3d 318, ¶ 23 (same); Brister , ¶ 16 (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. West
green
2 sentences2016In State v. West, 2008 MT 338, ¶ 17 , 346 Mont. 244 , 194 P.3d 683 , we explained: “[T]he rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and ‘bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity.’” Here, Paquette had ample opportunity to notify the court of its obligations under the statutes but she failed to do so. 2016In State v. West, 2008 MT 338, ¶ 17 , 346 Mont. 244 , 194 P.3d 683 , we explained: “[T]he rationale underlying the timely-objection rule is judicial economy and ‘bringing alleged errors to the attention of each court involved, so that actual error can be prevented or corrected at the first opportunity.’” Here, Paquette had ample opportunity to notify the court of its obligations under the statutes but she failed to do so. | 2 | 2013–2016 |
State v. Micklon
green
2 sentences2006Rather, this Court's jurisdiction derives from Article VII, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution, which includes "general supervisory control over all other courts," and Lenihan , correspondingly, is a judicially-created exception to the timely objection rule. [3] The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we "cabin" the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker , 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon , 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) ("M 2006Rather, this Court's jurisdiction derives from Article VII, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution, which includes "general supervisory control over all other courts," and Lenihan , correspondingly, is a judicially-created exception to the timely objection rule. [3] The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we "cabin" the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker , 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon , 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) ("M | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Avery v. Flathead County
green
2 sentences2006The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we “cabin” the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker, 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon, 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) (“Montana is hopeful that this Court will someday reject the rationale underlying Lenihan , at least to the extent it permits convicted persons to remain silent with respect to the conditions a sentencing court deems necessary to suspend a given sentence”). 2006Rather, this Court's jurisdiction derives from Article VII, Section 2, of the Montana Constitution, which includes "general supervisory control over all other courts," and Lenihan , correspondingly, is a judicially-created exception to the timely objection rule. [3] The State has also suggested, in previous cases, that we "cabin" the Lenihan exception, Brief of Respondent at 9, State v. Ironmaker , 2005 MT 226N , 328 Mont. 522 (Table), 120 P.3d 811 (Table) (No. 04-610), or simply overrule it, Brief of Respondent at 8, State v. Micklon , 2003 MT 45 , 314 Mont. 291 , 65 P.3d 559 (No. 02-415) ("M | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.