7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1928–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2026Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963); see also State v. Weisbarth, 2016 MT 214, ¶ 20 , 384 Mont. 424 , 378 P.3d 1195 . 2026Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963); see also State v. Weisbarth, 2016 MT 214, ¶ 20 , 384 Mont. 424 , 378 P.3d 1195 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weisbarthgreen2 sentences2026Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963); see also State v. Weisbarth, 2016 MT 214, ¶ 20 , 384 Mont. 424 , 378 P.3d 1195 . 2026Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963); see also State v. Weisbarth, 2016 MT 214, ¶ 20 , 384 Mont. 424 , 378 P.3d 1195 . | 1 | 1 |
Jarman v. Offuttgreen2 sentences1975In Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N. C. 468 , 80 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1954), it “‘includes every proceeding of a judicial nature before a competent court or before a tribunal or officer clothed with judicial or quasi-judicial powers.’ ” This power (to subpoena) relates to a “judicial proceeding”, which includes, of course, any pretrial hearing held by the court. 1975In Jarman v. Offutt, 239 N. C. 468 , 80 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1954), it “‘includes every proceeding of a judicial nature before a competent court or before a tribunal or officer clothed with judicial or quasi-judicial powers.’ ” This power (to subpoena) relates to a “judicial proceeding”, which includes, of course, any pretrial hearing held by the court. | 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. Swartz, 2008 Ca 31 (2-27-2009)
green
2 sentences2017Miami No. 2008 CA 31, 2009-Ohio-902, ¶ 11 . {¶ 7} The only witness at the hearing on the motion to suppress was Officer -4- Matthew Burian of the Kettering Police Department, who was called by the State. 2017Miami No. 2008 CA 31, 2009-Ohio-902 , a car was stopped in the early morning hours after failing to signal a left turn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Mental Health of D.L.T.
green
2 sentences2008Similarly, we held in Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 , that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony through the professional *181 person, who was the only witness at the hearing. 2008Similarly, we held in Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 , that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony through the professional *181 person, who was the only witness at the hearing. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Matter of D.L.T.
neutral
1 sentence2008Similarly, we held in Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 , that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony through the professional *181 person, who was the only witness at the hearing. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Oliver
green
2 sentences2004In reaching this conclusion in 1982 and again in 1996, we relied upon the United States Supreme Court case of In re Oliver (1948), 333 U.S. 257, 275 , 68 S. Ct. 499, 508-09 , 92 L. 2004In reaching this conclusion in 1982 and again in 1996, we relied upon the United States Supreme Court case of In re Oliver (1948), 333 U.S. 257, 275 , 68 S. Ct. 499, 508-09 , 92 L. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Johansen v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2003See Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P.; Johansen v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, 1998 MT 51, ¶ 24 , 288 Mont. 39, ¶ 24 , 955 P.2d 653, ¶ 24 . 4 ¶11 Gray also argues she was denied her right to call witnesses when she was not able to present her brother Joseph Gray as a witness at the hearing. 2003See Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P.; Johansen v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, 1998 MT 51, ¶ 24 , 288 Mont. 39, ¶ 24 , 955 P.2d 653, ¶ 24 . 4 ¶11 Gray also argues she was denied her right to call witnesses when she was not able to present her brother Joseph Gray as a witness at the hearing. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County
green
2 sentences1975The Arizona Court of Appeals stated in Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County, 17 Ariz.App. 79 , 495 P.2d 519 , at page 521: “* # # £he purpose of immunity statutes is to aid prosecuting officers in apprehending criminals, or those engaged in criminal enterprises, by inducing them or their confederates to turn state’s evidence and tell on each other or to place at the disposal of the prosecuting attorney evidence which constitutional provisions granting a witness the privilege of refusing to testify against himself make unavailable.” Further, at page 522 in the same opinion, the Court stated: “ 1975The Arizona Court of Appeals stated in Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County, 17 Ariz.App. 79 , 495 P.2d 519 , at page 521: “* # # £he purpose of immunity statutes is to aid prosecuting officers in apprehending criminals, or those engaged in criminal enterprises, by inducing them or their confederates to turn state’s evidence and tell on each other or to place at the disposal of the prosecuting attorney evidence which constitutional provisions granting a witness the privilege of refusing to testify against himself make unavailable.” Further, at page 522 in the same opinion, the Court stated: “ | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Huff v. State
green
2 sentences1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec 1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
People v. Barnes
green
2 sentences1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec 1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Gilyard v. State
neutral
1 sentence1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Towns v. State
neutral
1 sentence1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Rose v. Otis
neutral
1 sentence1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Broadribb v. Tibbets
neutral
1 sentence1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Spivey v. State ex rel. George
neutral
1 sentence1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
State v. Lucas
green
2 sentences1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec 1928The evidence adduced tended to impeach the credibility of the witnesses against whom it was directed, but the extent, if any, to which it impaired the credibility of the witness assailed is a question to be determined exclusively by the jury (People v. McLane, 60 Cal. 412 ; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho, 161 , 9 Pac. 532 ; State v. Lucas, 24 Or. 168 , 33 Pac. 538 ; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521 , 30 S. E. 808 ; Gilyard v. State, 98 Ala. 59 , 13 South. 391 ), and the court cannot infringe upon the right of the jury to determine the credibility of a witness by an instruction which directly, or in effec | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.