Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
Sherner v. Conoco, Inc., 2000 MT 50 (Mont. 2000).
Sherner v. Conoco, Inc., 2000 MT 50 (Mont. 2000).
· cites it 34× “" Setting out the full definition of malice provided at § 1-1-204(3), MCA, Sherner stated, "[m]alice is implied where intentional acts are committed without justifiable excuse, privilege or defense .”
Busta Ex Rel. Busta v. Columbus Hosp. Corp., 916 P.2d 122 (Mont. 1996).
· cites it 12× “Section 1-1-204, MCA, does include the concept of foreseeability in the "duty" element when it defines negligence as "a want of the attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission that a prudent man would ordinarily give in acting in his own concerns.”
Blythe v. Radiometer Am., Inc., 866 P.2d 218 (Mont. 1993).
· cites it 22× “As set forth above, the type of intentional harm which exposes an employer to tort liability under Great Western is that which is maliciously and specifically directed at the employee or class of employee.”
Plouffe v. Montana Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs., 2002 MT 64 (Mont. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Section 1-1-204(3), MCA, describes the state of mind, as follows: "Malice" and "maliciously" denote a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.”
Est. of Strever v. Cline, 924 P.2d 666 (Mont. 1996).
· cites it 12× “Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201,…”
Derenberger v. Lutey, 674 P.2d 485 (Mont. 1983).
· cites it 12× “" The definition of negligence is found in section 1-1-204(4), MCA, which reads: "`Neglect', `negligence', `negligent', and `negligently' denote a want of the attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission that a prudent man would ordinarily give in…”
State v. Himes, 2015 MT 91 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 8× “” This definition is based on § 1-1-204(5), MCA, which states that “when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, [willfully] means a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to.”
Jobe v. City of Polson, 2004 MT 183 (Mont. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Section 1-1-204(5), MCA, states: “Willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, denotes a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to.”
Schmidt v. State, 951 P.2d 23 (Mont. 1997).
· cites it 6× “In addition, we held that the type of malice necessary to satisfy § 39-71-413, MCA, was that malice described by § 1-1-204(3), MCA, which defines malice as “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person,” and not actual malice as defined in § 27-1-221(2), MCA, which provides…”
Anderson v. Recontrust Co., 2017 MT 313 (Mont. 2017).
“Sections 1-1-204, 27-1-701, and 28-1-201, MCA (codification of common law duty and negligence theory); Fisher, ¶ 16; Busta v.”
Starkenburg v. State, 934 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1997).
· cites it 2× “For example, § 27-1-701, MCA, states that, except as otherwise provided by law, “everyone is responsible .”
Sherner v. Nat'l Loss Control Servs. Corp., 2005 MT 284 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 14× “]” We agree with the Sherners that, here, “the context does not require otherwise.” Thus, we conclude the § 1-1-204(3), MCA, definition of malice applies to § 33-1-1210(1), MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-204(1) — 1 case
Busta Ex Rel. Busta v. Columbus Hosp. Corp., 916 P.2d 122 (Mont. 1996).
“Section 1-1-204, MCA, does include the concept of foreseeability in the "duty" element when it defines negligence as "a want of the attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission that a prudent man would ordinarily give in acting in his own concerns.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-204(2) — 1 case
— Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-204(3) — 8 cases
Sherner v. Conoco, Inc., 2000 MT 50 (Mont. 2000).
“" Setting out the full definition of malice provided at § 1-1-204(3), MCA, Sherner stated, "[m]alice is implied where intentional acts are committed without justifiable excuse, privilege or defense .”
Blythe v. Radiometer Am., Inc., 866 P.2d 218 (Mont. 1993).
“As set forth above, the type of intentional harm which exposes an employer to tort liability under Great Western is that which is maliciously and specifically directed at the employee or class of employee.”
Plouffe v. Montana Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs., 2002 MT 64 (Mont. 2002).
“Section 1-1-204(3), MCA, describes the state of mind, as follows: "Malice" and "maliciously" denote a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.”
Schmidt v. State, 951 P.2d 23 (Mont. 1997).
“In addition, we held that the type of malice necessary to satisfy § 39-71-413, MCA, was that malice described by § 1-1-204(3), MCA, which defines malice as “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person,” and not actual malice as defined in § 27-1-221(2), MCA, which provides…”
Sherner v. Nat'l Loss Control Servs. Corp., 2005 MT 284 (Mont. 2005).
“]” We agree with the Sherners that, here, “the context does not require otherwise.” Thus, we conclude the § 1-1-204(3), MCA, definition of malice applies to § 33-1-1210(1), MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-204(4) — 5 cases
Est. of Strever v. Cline, 924 P.2d 666 (Mont. 1996).
“Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201,…”
Derenberger v. Lutey, 674 P.2d 485 (Mont. 1983).
“" The definition of negligence is found in section 1-1-204(4), MCA, which reads: "`Neglect', `negligence', `negligent', and `negligently' denote a want of the attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission that a prudent man would ordinarily give in…”
Starkenburg v. State, 934 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1997).
“For example, § 27-1-701, MCA, states that, except as otherwise provided by law, “everyone is responsible .”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-204(5) — 9 cases
State v. Himes, 2015 MT 91 (Mont. 2015).
“” This definition is based on § 1-1-204(5), MCA, which states that “when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, [willfully] means a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to.”
Derenberger v. Lutey, 674 P.2d 485 (Mont. 1983).
“" The definition of negligence is found in section 1-1-204(4), MCA, which reads: "`Neglect', `negligence', `negligent', and `negligently' denote a want of the attention to the nature or probable consequences of the act or omission that a prudent man would ordinarily give in…”
Jobe v. City of Polson, 2004 MT 183 (Mont. 2004).
“Section 1-1-204(5), MCA, states: “Willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, denotes a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.