Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1922–1984 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Register Co. v. Recording Fare Register Co.green2 sentences1963See International Register Co. v. Recording Fare Register Co., 2 Cir., 151 F. 199 . 1948See International Register Co. v. Recording Fare Register Co., 2 Cir., 151 F. 199 . | 2 | 2 |
Allers v. Willisgreen2 sentences1984See Allers v. Willis (Mont. 1982), [ 197 Mont. 499 ,] 643 P.2d 592, 596 , 39 St.Rep. 745 , 750. 1984See Allers v. Willis (Mont. 1982), [ 197 Mont. 499 ,] 643 P.2d 592, 596 , 39 St.Rep. 745 , 750. | 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. Kahn
neutral
2 sentences1948State v. Kahn, 56 Mont. 108 , 182 Pac. 107 . 1948State v. Kahn, 56 Mont. 108 , 182 Pac. 107 . | 2 | 1922–1948 |
State v. Francis
green
2 sentences1944This court defined a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Francis , 58 Mont. 659 , 664 , 194 P. 304 , 305 , and the circumstances wherein it may be used: "` Nunc pro tunc ' means literally, `now for then,' and a valid nunc pro tunc order is one which, for some good reason, should have been made at an earlier date, and which therefore, the court may cause to take effect as of the date when it should have been made. 1944This court defined a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Francis , 58 Mont. 659 , 664 , 194 P. 304 , 305 , and the circumstances wherein it may be used: "` Nunc pro tunc ' means literally, `now for then,' and a valid nunc pro tunc order is one which, for some good reason, should have been made at an earlier date, and which therefore, the court may cause to take effect as of the date when it should have been made. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
In Re Nelson
neutral
2 sentences1944Criticism of a court or a judge is contemptuous only when made while the cause to which it refers is pending before the court. ( In re Nelson , 103 Mont. 43 , 60 P.2d 365 .) The nunc pro tunc order directing the petition filed as of October 7th, when it was stamped on its face for filing under date of November 15, and entered on the records under the latter date was an improper and illegal employment of a nunc pro tunc order, and under the universally recognized rule was void and of no effect. 1944Criticism of a court or a judge is contemptuous only when made while the cause to which it refers is pending before the court. ( In re Nelson , 103 Mont. 43 , 60 P.2d 365 .) The nunc pro tunc order directing the petition filed as of October 7th, when it was stamped on its face for filing under date of November 15, and entered on the records under the latter date was an improper and illegal employment of a nunc pro tunc order, and under the universally recognized rule was void and of no effect. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Merchants' National Bank v. National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1926(Merchants National Bank of Richmond v. National Bank of Lillington, 231 Fed. 556 ; Bank of Springfield v. Williams (S. D.), 205 N. W. 221 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Bank of Springfield v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1926(Merchants National Bank of Richmond v. National Bank of Lillington, 231 Fed. 556 ; Bank of Springfield v. Williams (S. D.), 205 N. W. 221 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences1922(State v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Mont. 413 , 185 Pac. 708 .) It is a universally recognized rule of con- [6] struction in testing the validity of a statute subject to two constructions, one of which will' uphold its validity, while the other will condemn it, that the former will be adopted if it can be done without violence to the fair meaning of the words employed. 1922(State v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Mont. 413 , 185 Pac. 708 .) It is a universally recognized rule of con- [6] struction in testing the validity of a statute subject to two constructions, one of which will' uphold its validity, while the other will condemn it, that the former will be adopted if it can be done without violence to the fair meaning of the words employed. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.