Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case:
Maguire v. State, 835 P.2d 755 (Mont. 1992).
Maguire v. State, 835 P.2d 755 (Mont. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Section 53-20-101(1), MCA, which sets forth the purpose of Montana's chapter pertaining to the developmentally disabled, states that: The purpose of this part is to: (1) secure for each person who may be developmentally disabled such treatment and habilitation as will be suited…”
In Re Gm, 2008 MT 200 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 4× “next contends that there was insufficient evidence to recommit him because the incidents of aggression noted in the RFST Report were too stale to be considered evidence that G.M. posed an "imminent" threat of harm to others.”
In Re Tp, 2008 MT 266 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 9× “2d at 1303 ; § 53-20-101, MCA (2005). Further, § 53-20-128(6), MCA, grants the court authority to order a recommitment based on the filed reports when the petitioner does not request a hearing.”
Matter of WM, 828 P.2d 378 (Mont. 1992).
· cites it 6× “claims that if the behavior management program used with him at MDC had been used in the group home, the placement would have been successful.”
In Re Tw, 2005 MT 340 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 5× “While the Legislature declared, as a matter of public policy, a preference for community placement of such individuals over institutionalization, see § 53-20-101, MCA, this Court has clarified that this preference did not create "an absolute right to community placement.”
In re G. M., 2008 MT 200 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 4× “next contends that there was insufficient evidence to recommit him because the incidents of aggression noted in the RFST Report were too stale to be considered evidence that G.M. posed an “imminent” threat of harm to others.”
In re W.M., 252 Mont. 225 (Mont. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Section 53-20-101, MCA. But that preference does not create an absolute right to community placement.”
In re T.W., 2005 MT 340 (Mont. 2005).
· cites it 5× “While the Legislature declared, as a matter of public policy, a preference for community placement of such individuals over institutionalization, see § 53-20-101, MCA, this Court has clarified that this preference did not create “an absolute right to community placement.”
In re T.P., 2008 MT 266 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 9× “Although the March Plan, Janacaro’s Report, and the RFST Report were not formally offered into evidence, these documents were filed with the District Court before the hearing as required by statute and were available to the court and both parties.”
T.M.B v. West Mont & State, 2024 MT 319 (Mont. 2024).
· cites it 13× “, as well as the applicable state law as outlined in the 4 Montana Developmental Disabilities and Facilities Act of 1974 (the Act) (codified at § 53-20-101, MCA, et seq.). The purpose of the Act is to, in part: (1) secure for each person who may be a person with developmental…”
In re L.S., 2009 MT 83 (Mont. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, this Court now ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the definition of developmental disability, § 53-20-101(15), MCA (2005), just to keep the revolving door spinning.”
In the Matter of Ls, 2009 MT 83 (Mont. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, this Court now ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the definition of developmental disability, § 53-20-101(15), MCA (2005), just to keep the revolving door spinning.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-20-101(1) — 4 cases
Maguire v. State, 835 P.2d 755 (Mont. 1992).
“Section 53-20-101(1), MCA, which sets forth the purpose of Montana's chapter pertaining to the developmentally disabled, states that: The purpose of this part is to: (1) secure for each person who may be developmentally disabled such treatment and habilitation as will be suited…”
In Re Tp, 2008 MT 266 (Mont. 2008).
“2d at 1303 ; § 53-20-101, MCA (2005). Further, § 53-20-128(6), MCA, grants the court authority to order a recommitment based on the filed reports when the petitioner does not request a hearing.”
In re T.P., 2008 MT 266 (Mont. 2008).
“Although the March Plan, Janacaro’s Report, and the RFST Report were not formally offered into evidence, these documents were filed with the District Court before the hearing as required by statute and were available to the court and both parties.”
T.M.B v. West Mont & State, 2024 MT 319 (Mont. 2024).
“, as well as the applicable state law as outlined in the 4 Montana Developmental Disabilities and Facilities Act of 1974 (the Act) (codified at § 53-20-101, MCA, et seq.). The purpose of the Act is to, in part: (1) secure for each person who may be a person with developmental…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-20-101(15) — 2 cases
In re L.S., 2009 MT 83 (Mont. 2009).
“Indeed, this Court now ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the definition of developmental disability, § 53-20-101(15), MCA (2005), just to keep the revolving door spinning.”
In the Matter of Ls, 2009 MT 83 (Mont. 2009).
“Indeed, this Court now ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the definition of developmental disability, § 53-20-101(15), MCA (2005), just to keep the revolving door spinning.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-20-101(2) — 4 cases
Matter of WM, 828 P.2d 378 (Mont. 1992).
“claims that if the behavior management program used with him at MDC had been used in the group home, the placement would have been successful.”
In Re Tw, 2005 MT 340 (Mont. 2005).
“While the Legislature declared, as a matter of public policy, a preference for community placement of such individuals over institutionalization, see § 53-20-101, MCA, this Court has clarified that this preference did not create "an absolute right to community placement.”
In re W.M., 252 Mont. 225 (Mont. 1992).
“Section 53-20-101, MCA. But that preference does not create an absolute right to community placement.”
In re T.W., 2005 MT 340 (Mont. 2005).
“While the Legislature declared, as a matter of public policy, a preference for community placement of such individuals over institutionalization, see § 53-20-101, MCA, this Court has clarified that this preference did not create “an absolute right to community placement.”
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.