Notes of Decisions
Cited in
354
cases (
265 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Beach v. State, 2015 MT 118 (Mont. 2015).
Beach v. State, 2015 MT 118 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 29× “The Montana writ of habeas corpus is defined by § 46-22-101(1), MCA, and provides that “every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into 1 It is also worth noting that Egelhoff did not involve any…”
D. Steilman v. Michael, 2017 MT 310 (Mont. 2017).
· cites it 10× “DISCUSSION ¶10 Section 46-22-101, MCA, provides “every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of imprisonment or restraint and, if illegal, to be delivered from the imprisonment or…”
Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Characterizing Lott’s petition as a writ of habeas corpus, the State asserts that -under § 46-22-101(2), MCA, the writ of habeas corpus “is not available to attack the validity of the conviction or sentence of a person who has been adjudged guilty of an offense in a court of…”
Sage v. Gamble, 929 P.2d 822 (Mont. 1996).
· cites it 10× “ISSUE 1 Did the District Court have subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, to determine whether Sage's right to due process was violated when he was denied the opportunity to personally appear before the Montana Board of Pardons? On appeal, the Board…”
Gratzer v. Mahoney, 2006 MT 282 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 11× “As a preliminary matter, Gratzer challenges the constitutionality of § 46-22-101(2), MCA (2003), suggesting that the statute, by prohibiting a petitioner from challenging the validity of a sentence, impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus.”
State v. Ditton, 2006 MT 235 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 4× “¶ 15 Even though he was neither imprisoned nor otherwise restrained of liberty, as required by § 46-22-101(1), MCA, Ditton petitioned the District Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus while the case was before the Municipal Court.”
Kills on Top v. State, 901 P.2d 1368 (Mont. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Issue 20 Did the District Court err in dismissing Appellant’s habeas corpus petition? The District Court dismissed Appellant’s habeas corpus petition relying on § 46-22-101(2), MCA, which provides that habeas corpus relief is not available to attack the validity of a conviction…”
Miller v. Eleventh Jud. Dist. Court, 2007 MT 58 (Mont. 2007).
· cites it 3× “¶4 Section 46-22-101(1), MCA, provides: Except as provided in subsection (2), every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint and, if illegal, to be…”
Lawrence v. Guyer, 440 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2019).
· cites it 3× “**228 Section 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA, provides: "If a suspended or deferred sentence is revoked, the judge shall consider any elapsed time[,] .”
State v. C. Jardee, 2020 MT 81 (Mont. 2020).
· cites it 2× “7 now point to an actual violation by the defendant, in the relevant time period, found in the record or recollection of the probation officer, to establish a basis for denial of street time credit for that period, here, between the release on bond and sentencing.”
Rudolph v. Day, 902 P.2d 1007 (Mont. 1995).
· cites it 8× “Section 46-22-101, MCA. While habeas corpus is available to determine the legality or illegality of the restraint alleged, Wells v.”
MacPheat v. Mahoney, 2000 MT 62 (Mont. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Section 46-22-101, MCA. MacPheat contends that, had he received all of the good-time credit to which he was entitled, he would have discharged his sentence on January 5, 2000.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-22-101(1) — 251 cases
Beach v. State, 2015 MT 118 (Mont. 2015).
“The Montana writ of habeas corpus is defined by § 46-22-101(1), MCA, and provides that “every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into 1 It is also worth noting that Egelhoff did not involve any…”
State v. Ditton, 2006 MT 235 (Mont. 2006).
“¶ 15 Even though he was neither imprisoned nor otherwise restrained of liberty, as required by § 46-22-101(1), MCA, Ditton petitioned the District Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus while the case was before the Municipal Court.”
Miller v. Eleventh Jud. Dist. Court, 2007 MT 58 (Mont. 2007).
“¶4 Section 46-22-101(1), MCA, provides: Except as provided in subsection (2), every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of his liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint and, if illegal, to be…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-22-101(2) — 146 cases
Lott v. State, 2006 MT 279 (Mont. 2006).
“Characterizing Lott’s petition as a writ of habeas corpus, the State asserts that -under § 46-22-101(2), MCA, the writ of habeas corpus “is not available to attack the validity of the conviction or sentence of a person who has been adjudged guilty of an offense in a court of…”
Beach v. State, 2015 MT 118 (Mont. 2015).
“The Montana writ of habeas corpus is defined by § 46-22-101(1), MCA, and provides that “every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into 1 It is also worth noting that Egelhoff did not involve any…”
Gratzer v. Mahoney, 2006 MT 282 (Mont. 2006).
“As a preliminary matter, Gratzer challenges the constitutionality of § 46-22-101(2), MCA (2003), suggesting that the statute, by prohibiting a petitioner from challenging the validity of a sentence, impermissibly suspends the writ of habeas corpus.”
D. Steilman v. Michael, 2017 MT 310 (Mont. 2017).
“DISCUSSION ¶10 Section 46-22-101, MCA, provides “every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty within this state may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of imprisonment or restraint and, if illegal, to be delivered from the imprisonment or…”
Kills on Top v. State, 901 P.2d 1368 (Mont. 1995).
“Issue 20 Did the District Court err in dismissing Appellant’s habeas corpus petition? The District Court dismissed Appellant’s habeas corpus petition relying on § 46-22-101(2), MCA, which provides that habeas corpus relief is not available to attack the validity of a conviction…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-22-101(2)(2023) — 1 case
— Mont. Code Ann. § 46-22-101(2019) — 1 case
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.