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 2002–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of J.M. Jr.green2 sentences2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald’s appeal to this Court. ¶21 This Court has repeatedly stated that “no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). 2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald’s appeal to this Court. ¶21 This Court has repeatedly stated that “no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). | 2 | 2 |
Burk Ranches, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Thus, their arguments center on whether the District Court erred in applying the Burk Ranches footnote exception, under which the permanency presumption "can be overcome by statutory and common laws, such as environmental laws, which compel repair or replacement." Burk Ranches, 242 Mont. at 307 n. 3, 790 P.2d at 447 n. 3. ¶ 147 Texaco asserts Sunburst has not claimed that restoration damages were compelled by any "specific" environmental law. 2007Thus, their arguments center on whether the District Court erred in applying the Burk Ranches footnote exception, under which the permanency presumption "can be overcome by statutory and common laws, such as environmental laws, which compel repair or replacement." Burk Ranches, 242 Mont. at 307 n. 3, 790 P.2d at 447 n. 3. ¶ 147 Texaco asserts Sunburst has not claimed that restoration damages were compelled by any "specific" environmental law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re A.R.
green
2 sentences2013(Emphasis added.) We have explained that the “purpose of a permanency plan hearing is to assure that children taken into protective custody by the [Department] do not languish in foster care or fall through the proverbial administrative crack.” In re A.R., 2004 MT 22, ¶ 21 , 319 Mont. 340 , 83 P.3d 1287 . 2013(Emphasis added.) We have explained that the “purpose of a permanency plan hearing is to assure that children taken into protective custody by the [Department] do not languish in foster care or fall through the proverbial administrative crack.” In re A.R., 2004 MT 22, ¶ 21 , 319 Mont. 340 , 83 P.3d 1287 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In Re AR
green
2 sentences2013(Emphasis added.) We have explained that the “purpose of a permanency plan hearing is to assure that children taken into protective custody by the [Department] do not languish in foster care or fall through the proverbial administrative crack.” In re A.R., 2004 MT 22, ¶ 21 , 319 Mont. 340 , 83 P.3d 1287 . 2013(Emphasis added.) We have explained that the “purpose of a permanency plan hearing is to assure that children taken into protective custody by the [Department] do not languish in foster care or fall through the proverbial administrative crack.” In re A.R., 2004 MT 22, ¶ 21 , 319 Mont. 340 , 83 P.3d 1287 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re A.N.
green
2 sentences2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald's appeal to this Court. ¶ 21 This Court has repeatedly stated that "no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless." In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶ 16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). 2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald’s appeal to this Court. ¶21 This Court has repeatedly stated that “no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
In Re An
green
2 sentences2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald’s appeal to this Court. ¶21 This Court has repeatedly stated that “no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). 2002However, this hearing date has since been vacated by the District Court, since it was divested of jurisdiction upon Donald’s appeal to this Court. ¶21 This Court has repeatedly stated that “no civil case shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re J.M., 2001 MT 51, ¶ 16 , 304 Mont. 303, ¶ 16 , 21 P.3d 618, ¶16 (citing In re A.N., 2000 MT 35, ¶ 55 , 298 Mont. 237, ¶ 55 , 995 P.2d 427, ¶ 55 ). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
In Re JBK
green
2 sentences2015Although the bond between Mother and the children was undisputedly loving, “love and willingness are sometimes not sufficient to establish fitness to parent.” In re J.B.K., 2004 MT 202, ¶ 29 , 322 Mont. 286 , 95 P.3d 699 . ¶12 Finally, Mother asks this Court to find that the District Court committed plain error by failing to hold a permanency hearing within 12 months of the children’s first 60 days of removal from the home. 2015Although the bond between Mother and the children was undisputedly loving, “love and willingness are sometimes not sufficient to establish fitness to parent.” In re J.B.K., 2004 MT 202, ¶ 29 , 322 Mont. 286 , 95 P.3d 699 . ¶12 Finally, Mother asks this Court to find that the District Court committed plain error by failing to hold a permanency hearing within 12 months of the children’s first 60 days of removal from the home. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.