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.
6 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . 2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 ; Kotwicki , ¶ 16. ¶18 In considering the District Court’s requirement that Bullplume pay the costs of his evaluations and treatment as conditions of his probation, we note preliminarily that it is well established a court does not have the power to impose a sentence unless authorized by a *460 specific grant of statutory authority. | 4 | 2007–2013 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . 2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 ; Kotwicki , ¶ 16. ¶18 In considering the District Court’s requirement that Bullplume pay the costs of his evaluations and treatment as conditions of his probation, we note preliminarily that it is well established a court does not have the power to impose a sentence unless authorized by a *460 specific grant of statutory authority. | 4 | 2007–2013 |
State v. Swoboda
green
2 sentences2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . 2013Nelson, 274 Mont. at 20 , 906 P.2d at 668 ; Swoboda, 276 Mont. at 482 , 918 P.2d at 298 . | 4 | 2007–2013 |
State v. K. Old Bull
neutral
2 sentences2022A sentence is illegal “if the sentencing court lacked statutory authority to impose it, if the condition falls outside the parameters of the applicable sentencing statutes, or if the court did not adhere to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes.” State v. Bull, 2017 MT 247 , ¶ 11, 389 Mont. 56 , 403 P.3d 670 (citation omitted). “[W]hen a district court, if provided the opportunity to consider the error now asserted on appeal, could nevertheless have imposed the same sentence, the illegality requirement of the Lenihan exception has not been met.” Bull, ¶ 11. ¶16 At the 2022A sentence is illegal “if the sentencing court lacked statutory authority to impose it, if the condition falls outside the parameters of the applicable sentencing statutes, or if the court did not adhere to the affirmative mandates of the applicable sentencing statutes.” State v. Bull, 2017 MT 247 , ¶ 11, 389 Mont. 56 , 403 P.3d 670 (citation omitted). “[W]hen a district court, if provided the opportunity to consider the error now asserted on appeal, could nevertheless have imposed the same sentence, the illegality requirement of the Lenihan exception has not been met.” Bull, ¶ 11. ¶16 At the | 2 | 2017–2022 |
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.