DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 79
|
|
|
- Bridget McCoy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 April DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 79 PENNY S. RONNING and KELLY DENNEHY, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY and NATIONAL ENGLISH SHEPHERD RESCUE, Defendants and Appellees. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: For Appellees: Elizabeth J. Honaker, Honaker Law Firm, Billings, Montana Mark A. English, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana (Yellowstone County) Vernon E. Woodward, Jo Messex Casey, Woodward & Casey, PLLC, Billings, Montana (NESR) Filed: Clerk Submitted on Briefs: March 16, 2011 Decided: April 19, 2011
2 Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court. 1 Plaintiffs Penny S. Ronning (Ronning) and Kelly Dennehy (Dennehy) appeal from an order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granting Defendants Yellowstone County and National English Shepherd Rescue ( NESR ) motions for summary judgment. We affirm. 2 This case originates from Yellowstone County s December 2008 seizure of approximately 200 dogs from Linda Kapsa s (Kapsa) property. Kapsa was charged with animal cruelty in January The dogs were sent to the MetraPark (a county facility) and were cared for by volunteers. Ronning and Dennehy were two of the volunteers. 3 Kapsa and the State of Montana, acting through Yellowstone County, entered into a plea agreement on July 8, The plea agreement, in relevant part, stated: I [Kapsa] will immediately upon acceptance of my nolo contendere plea join the State in a Petition for Disposal of Evidence [the dogs] pursuant to Section The petition will seek immediate release of all but up to 20 dogs of my choosing currently housed at MetraPark to an appropriate rescue group with adoption preference to be given to volunteers currently providing care to the seized animals. I will disclaim any right to possess the released dogs and affirmatively waive my right to petition for return of the dogs under Section , MCA. [Emphasis added.] 4 On July 14, 2009, Kapsa and the State filed a Joint Petition for Disposal of Evidence, stating, in relevant part: It is the Petitioners intent that the dogs in Exhibit A and B will be spayed and neutered, then released immediately or as soon as practical to an appropriate animal rescue organization for adoption by suitable homes with the volunteers who have provided care for the dogs for the last seven months, receiving a preference to adopt the dogs. [Emphasis added.] 2
3 5 After the plea agreement was entered, ownership of the dogs was transferred to NESR. NESR began the process of placing the dogs into adoptive homes. Ronning applied to adopt four dogs: Joy, Love, Happy, and Eddie. Joy and Happy could be considered for adoption immediately, but under the plea agreement, Love and Eddie would either be released for adoption after Kapsa s sentencing, or returned to Kapsa. NESR offered Ronning the chance to adopt Happy. Ronning refused so that Happy could be adopted by another volunteer. NESR did not offer Ronning any other dogs. On August 16, 2009, Dennehy also sought to adopt Love. On August 21, 2009, Dennehy was told that Love had already been placed. Dennehy was asked if she was interested in another dog, but she wanted Love. Eddie was adopted by another volunteer. Love and Joy were placed with professional dog trainers. It appears from the record that neither Ronning nor Dennehy own any Kapsa dogs. 6 Ronning and Dennehy then brought suit against Yellowstone County and NESR for breach of contract, seeking specific performance - that they be given Love and Joy. The District Court granted summary judgment to Yellowstone County and NESR, finding that Ronning and Dennehy were not third party beneficiaries of the plea agreement, but were only incidental beneficiaries and as such have no standing to sue as third party beneficiaries. Ronning and Dennehy now appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW 7 We review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the same M. R. Civ. P. 56 criteria as the district court. Thornton v. Flathead County, 2009 MT 367, 13, 353 Mont. 252, 220 P.3d 395. We review a district court s conclusions of law for correctness. Id. 3
4 8 We will not reverse a district court where it reached the right result, although for the wrong reason. Cheff v. BNSF Railway Co., 2010 MT 235, 37, 358 Mont. 144, 243 P.3d 1115 (citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Talmage, 2007 MT 45, 23, 336 Mont. 125, 152 P.3d 1275.). DISCUSSION 9 This case requires us to answer one question are Ronning and Dennehy intended third party beneficiaries of the plea agreement? The answer is no. 10 Ronning and Dennehy argue that they are the intended third party beneficiaries of the plea agreement, and as such, the plea agreement entitles them, to 1) priority, as volunteers, over all other non-volunteer adoptees, and 2) adopt the specific dogs they requested. Yellowstone County argues that Ronning and Dennehy were, at the most, incidental beneficiaries, and that there was never any agreement to give specific dogs to specific people. NESR argues that Ronning and Dennehy were not intended third party beneficiaries and it was the State s and Kapsa s intent that the dogs go to suitable homes, and that if a volunteer s home was suitable, then the volunteer would have preference. 11 The District Court granted summary judgment to Yellowstone County and NESR, finding that Ronning and Dennehy were not intended third party beneficiaries and had no standing to enforce the plea agreement. While we agree that Ronning and Dennehy are not intended third party beneficiaries of the plea agreement, we do so because we find that, barring rare circumstances not present here, there are no intended third party beneficiaries to plea agreements. 4
5 12 Plea agreements are contracts and are generally governed by contract principles. State v. Rardon, 2005 MT 129, 18, 327 Mont. 228, 115 P.3d 182. However, a plea agreement is a unique kind of contract. It is an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant for the sole purpose of settling a pending criminal charge, or charges, against the defendant. See , MCA. Unlike other contracts, a plea agreement is not self-executing; it is contingent on approval by the court. The court is not bound by a plea agreement, and it may be accepted or rejected, in whole or in part. Id. Upon sentencing, a plea agreement terminates. That is, once each party has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement (each party has performed), the plea agreement has served its purpose and any duties under the contract are discharged. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 235 (1981). The controlling document becomes the judgment and sentence, which embodies the plea agreement in whatever form the court accepted. 13 In this case, the plea agreement was between Kapsa and Yellowstone County. Yellowstone County agreed to dismiss five charges in exchange for Kapsa s nolo contendere plea to one charge, and to recommend a certain sentence and conditions. Kapsa agreed to plead nolo contendere to one charge, and, upon acceptance of that plea, to join Yellowstone County in a petition to dispose of the seized evidence (the dogs) to a rescue organization for adoption, to certain limitations on animal ownership, and to pay restitution as ordered by the court. The parties to the plea agreement did all they were obligated to do. Kapsa did not and has not alleged Yellowstone County violated the agreement, or vice versa. Kapsa was sentenced and the criminal case is now closed, thus the plea agreement has terminated. 5
6 14 Ronning and Dennehy cannot be intended third party beneficiaries of the contract (the plea agreement) because it is has terminated. The only possible way Ronning and Dennehy could be intended third party beneficiaries is if the District Court s order named them as such. Without a court order naming them as intended third party beneficiaries, they would only be, at the very most, incidental beneficiaries. Incidental beneficiaries have no right to enforce the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 315. CONCLUSION 15 The District Court reached the proper result, although for the wrong reason. Accordingly, we affirm. We Concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ JIM RICE /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT 6
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 57
March 23 2010 DA 09-0466 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 57 HELEN VINCENT, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. APPEAL
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 35
February 16 2010 DA 09-0096 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 35 LINDA PRESCOTT, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, INNOVATIVE RESOURCE GROUP, LLC., a foreign limited liability company, d/b/a
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 203N
June 10 2008 DA 07-0401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 203N DAVID WHITE and JULIE WHITE, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, STATE OF MONTANA, Barbara Harris, individually and as Special
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
February 19 2010 DA 09-0214 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 36 DIANE MORIGEAU, personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Benjamin F. Morigeau, Sr., v. Plaintiff and
No. DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130
No. DA 06-0388 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130 YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, JAMES RENO and DWIGHT VIGNESS, v. ROBERTA DREW, and Petitioners and Respondents, Respondent and Appellant, MONTANA
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 105
April 22 2014 DA 13-0750 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 105 ANNE DEBOVOISE OSTBY ANDREW JAMES OSTBY, v. Petitioners and Appellants, BOARD OF OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION OF THE STATE
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 202N
September 14 2010 DA 09-0585 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 202N GERALD A. HEITKEMPER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
August 2 2011 DA 11-0127 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 184 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GAVIN JOHNSTON, Defendant and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 228N
August 19 2014 DA 14-0042 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 228N JESSE MONTAGNA, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
July 19 2011 DA 10-0342 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 170 RICHARD KERSHAW, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendant and Appellee.
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 107N
May 15 2012 DA 11-0320 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 107N IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LOIS A. DU LAC, Deceased, LINDA M. JENNINGS, v. Appellant, LEO DU LAC, ARLINE M. PRENTICE,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
October 13 2009 DA 09-0033 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 330 BRADLEY J. CERTAIN, v. Plaintiff and Appellee, TERRY LYNN TONN, aka TERRY LYNN CHAVEZ and GEORGE CHAVEZ, Defendants and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
July 23 2010 DA 09-0437 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 162N STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MELVIN MATSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 196
July 23 2014 DA 13-0767 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 196 IN THE MATTER OF: J. A. L., An Incapacitated Person. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District, In and
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 243N
November 10 2010 DA 10-0218 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 243N GREGORY S. HALL, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, DON HALL, d/b/a DON HALL BUILDERS, DONNA HALL d/b/a TOWN & COUNTRY PROPERTY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
July 10 2012 DA 11-0344 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 149 ARTHUR F. ROONEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF CUT BANK, Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-Appellant.
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. DOWL, LLC
No Shepard s Signal As of: September 29, 2017 4:28 PM Z Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. DOWL, LLC Supreme Court of Montana July 12, 2017, Argued; July 18, 2017, Submitted; September 26, 2017, Decided DA 16-0745
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2001 MT Mont P.3d 441 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,
No. 99-434 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2001 MT 9 302 Mont. 183 14 P.3d 441 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL VERNON BILLEDEAUX, JR., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 257
September 10 2013 DA 12-0614 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 257 TOM HARPOLE, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, POWELL COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993
No. 93-220 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993 MRN WELCH, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, SHARON D. HUBER, a/k/a SHARON TURBIVILLE, a/k/a SHARON BERTRAM, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
July 6 2012 DA 11-0404 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 143 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner and Appellee, v. CHAD CRINGLE, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 103N
April 15 2014 DA 13-0252 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 103N K & L, INC, d/b/a JERRY S TRANSMISSION, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATHAN FRANCIS STARR, Defendant and Appellant APPEAL
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 245
No. 03-465 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 245 GRASSY MOUNTAIN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Montana nonprofit corporation, v. RON GAGNON, Plaintiff and Respondent, Defendant and Appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
June 7 2011 DA 10-0392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2011 MT 124 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KAREN LYNCH STEVENS, and Petitioner and Appellee, RODNEY N. STEVENS, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL
Eagle Bend West Community Association, Inc. In the greater Harbor Village community- a great place to live! Memo
Eagle Bend West Community Association, Inc. In the greater Harbor Village community- a great place to live! To: From: Date: EBWCA Members Board of Directors January 15, 2016 Memo Subject: Montana Supreme
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
February 4 2014 DA 13-0389 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 32N ZACHARY DURNAM and STEPHANIE DURNAM for the Estate of ZACHARY DURNAM, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DILLON CITY COURT, STATE OF MONTANA [Enacted April 15, 2015] PREFACE
![LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DILLON CITY COURT, STATE OF MONTANA [Enacted April 15, 2015] PREFACE](/thumbs/79/79544357.jpg "LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DILLON CITY COURT, STATE OF MONTANA [Enacted April 15, 2015] PREFACE")
LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DILLON CITY COURT, STATE OF MONTANA [Enacted April 15, 2015] PREFACE The following Rules of Practice supplement the Justice and City Court Civil Rules and the Uniform Justice
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 275
December 21 2010 DA 10-0251 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 275 JAMES and CHRISTINE GORDON, ky Petitioners and Appellees, JOSEPH KIM KUZARA, individually and as representative of R
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 328
No. 04-193 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 328 CITY OF MISSOULA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICK O NEILL, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 255
No. 05-016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 255 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON KILLAM, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial
The Court Refuses to Honor my Notice of Appeal! What do I do now!?! 1
The Court Refuses to Honor my Notice of Appeal! What do I do now!?! 1 Paul J. Notarianni 2 DISCLAIMER: This article is the property of its author, unless otherwise noted. It is made available on the Western
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT 202
No. 98-176 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT 202 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLAY TAYLOR and KAREN TAYLOR, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA NO
No. 88-415 88-422 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA KIM RIVERA, -vs- NO. 88-415 Petitioner and Respondent, JANET E. ESCHLER, Justice of the Peace, Justice Court, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA,
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MT 248
P. KAY BUGGER, v. MIKE McGOUGH, and MARK JOHNSON, No. 05-668 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, and Appellant, Defendant and Respondent, 2006 MT 248 Defendant, Counter-Claimant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
January 3 2008 DA 07-0115 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 4 ACCESS ORGANICS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDY HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant, and MIKE VANDERBEEK, Defendant.
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 89-620 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DANIEL DEBAR, THOMAS V. HORNUNG and JOHN S. KOCHEL, Plaintiffs and Appellants, TRUSTEES, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 and
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 263N
No. 03-605 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 263N LOREN HANSON, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, CARL DIX d/b/a ROOSEVELT HOTEL and ESTATE OF JOHN MAAG d/b/a ROOSEVELT HOTEL, Defendants and
On July 11, 2006, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition for Injunctive Relief and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. OP 06-0492 MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL ) DEFENSE LAWYERS; AMERICAN CIVIL ) LIBERTIES UNION OF MONTANA; MONTANA ) ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES; MONTANA )
Hill Cnty. High Sch. Dist. No. A v. Dick Anderson Constr., Inc.
No Shepard s Signal As of: February 10, 2017 11:39 AM EST Hill Cnty. High Sch. Dist. No. A v. Dick Anderson Constr., Inc. Supreme Court of Montana December 7, 2016, Submitted on Briefs; February 7, 2017,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
August 12 2014 DA 14-0046 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 214 CITIZENS FOR BALANCED USE; BIG GAME FOREVER, LLC; MONTANA OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES ASSN.; MONTANA SPORTSMEN FOR FISH AND
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 282
December 11 2012 DA 11-0496 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2012 MT 282 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD PATTERSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court
2018COA62. No. 16CA0192 People v. Madison Crimes Theft; Criminal Law Sentencing Restitution. Pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and the
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
2018COA24. No. 16CA1643, People v. Joslin Criminal Procedure Postconviction Remedies Restitution Interest
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, NO. 34,653 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, 2016 4 NO. 34,653 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 DANIEL G. ARAGON, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2016 MT 255
10/11/2016 DA 15-0589 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 15-0589 2016 MT 255 TINA McCOLL, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, MICHAEL LANG, N.D. and NATURE S WISDOM, Defendant and Appellee.
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 47
February 24 2009 DA 07-0343 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 47 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILBERT FISH, JR. Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
August 5 2014 DA 13-0536 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 209 CITY OF MISSOULA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARTIN MULIPA IOSEFO, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2017 MT 12
01/18/2017 DA 14-0744 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 14-0744 2017 MT 12 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JODY JAKE POPE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM:
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 78
March 26 2013 DA 12-0207 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 78 MATT STUBBLEFIELD, JOHN KNAPP, and NEIL COURTIS, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, TOWN OF WEST YELLOWSTONE, Defendant and Appellee.
NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
NO. 89-497 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 ROBERT W. KOCH, JEROME PRONOVOST, MABEL LOGAN, plaintiffs and Appellants, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, METRAPARK and METRAPARK BOARD, Defendants and
2018COA90. No. 16CA1787, People v. McCulley Criminal Law Sex Offender Registration Petition for Removal from Registry
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
NO. 92-593 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1994 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERALD THOHAS DAVIDSON, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
ORDER. ment and Trust Co. (Mont. 1985), 697 P.2d 930, 42 St.Rep.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF NORWEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT AND TRUST COMPANY, et al. and MARCELLA E. MAKI, Joint Petitioners. ORDER CLERK Of SUBIZE&%E COURT STATE OP tt4ohtbsr
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,099 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JERRY SELLERS, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,099 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JERRY SELLERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline District
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
January 13 2014 DA 13-0374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 7 GARY BATES, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, SCOTT ANDERSON, MICHAEL BLIVEN, and ANDERSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, and ANDERSON and
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2007 GABRIEL ZAHARIA KIMBALL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County No. M-05-613
Result #12: Montana Case Law - IN RE ESTATE OF KURALT, 2000 MT 359
Page 1 of 5 Montana Case Law IN RE ESTATE OF KURALT, 2000 MT 359 303 Mont. 335, 15 P.3d 931 IN RE THE ESTATE OF CHARLES KURALT, Deceased. No. 00-235. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs: October
INMATE FORM FOR CIVIL ACTIONS FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
INMATE FORM FOR CIVIL ACTIONS FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY (NOTE: O.C.G.A. 9-10-14(a) requires the proper use of this form, and failure to use this form as required
[Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by strikeover.] ALTERNATIVE A
![[Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by strikeover.] ALTERNATIVE A](/thumbs/86/93341524.jpg "[Additions are indicated by underlining and deletions are indicated by strikeover.] ALTERNATIVE A")
Order June 30, 2010 ADM File No. 2010-16 Proposed Amendments of Rules 6.302 and 6.610 of the Michigan Court Rules Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice Michael F. Cavanagh
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSHUA SARGEANT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D17-3753 [April 4, 2018] Petition for writ of prohibition to the Seventeenth
2015 IL App (5th) NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 07/28/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 130224 NO. 5-13-0224
[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]
![[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]](/thumbs/84/89704679.jpg "[Additions to the text are indicated in underlining and deleted text is shown by strikeover.]")
Order August 24, 2012 ADM File No. 2011-28 Amendments of Rules 3.931, 3.977, 4.101, 4.201, 4.202, 4.401, 5.101, 6.610, 6.625, 6.907, 7.104, 7.105, 7.108, 7.116, 7.118, 7.119, 7.121, 7.123, 7.215, 7.309,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 25, 2016 v No. 323848 Kalamazoo Circuit Court NIKOLAS A. SHREVE, LC No. 2011-001201-FH Defendant-Appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
December 15 2009 DA 09-0046 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 426 DR. JAMES MUNGAS, DR. MICHAEL DUBE, DR. JAMES ENGLISH, DR. THOMAS KEY, DR. DALE MORTENSON, DR. GRANT HARRER, and DR.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JOSUE MONTERO, v. Petitioner, THE HONORABLE JOHN FOREMAN, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, STATE
Delinquency Hearings
Delinquency Hearings Table of Contents DETENTION HEARING AT A GLANCE... 2 ARRAIGNMENT HEARING AT A GLANCE... 3 ADJUDICATORY HEARING AT A GLANCE... 4 DISPOSITION HEARING AT A GLANCE... 5 VIOLATION OF PROBATION
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2001 MT 251. ROBERT D. DuBRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and
No. 01-068 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2001 MT 251 ROBERT D. DuBRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM:
NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 30702 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICK K. CUI, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2014 WY 168
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING ROBERT OWEN MARSHALL, III, Appellant (Defendant), 2014 WY 168 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2014 December 23, 2014 v. S-14-0073 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Appeal
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 15
No. 03-165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2004 MT 15 DEBRA J. FLOOD, formerly DEBRA J. COOK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MURAT KALINYAPRAK, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District
Court Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
2017COA155. No. 16CA0419, People in Interest of I.S. Criminal Law Sex Offender Registration
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995
NO. 94-451 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 RYAN FANDRICH and CATHY AVARD FANDRICH, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, CAPITAL FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, a Montana corporation; MARK RENNERFELDT,
I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
FILED FEB DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 342A STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, JAMES PILLER,
February 10 2015 DA 12-0742 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 12-0742 2014 MT 342A STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JAMES PILLER, Defendant and Appellant. FILED FEB
CC ATTACHMENT SUMMONS PAGE: 1 USING THIS FORM. a. Original to sheriff for proof of service of process, then to court.
CC-1442 - ATTACHMENT SUMMONS PAGE: 1 1. Copies USING THIS FORM a. Original to sheriff for proof of service of process, then to court. b. First copy - to principal defendant. If more than one defendant,
INMATE FORM FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY
INMATE FORM FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INSTRUCTIONS READ CAREFULLY (NOTE: O.C.G.A. 9-10-14(a) requires the proper use of this form, and failure to use this form as required will result in the clerk of any
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:11-cv-00099-SEH-CSO Document 16 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION SUSAN F. FISH, vs. Plaintiff, JO ACTON, ROBERT PAUL,
APPENDIX A. FORM PETITION READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THE PETITION
APPENDIX A. FORM PETITION The following form petition shall be available without cost to a prisoner in the prisons and other places of detention and shall also be available without cost to any potential
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT Mont P. 3d 342 FOUR RIVERS SEED COMPANY.
No. 00-522 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT 360 303 Mont. 342 16 P. 3d 342 FOUR RIVERS SEED COMPANY and TED COOK, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CIRCLE K FARMS, INC., and C. KENT KIRKSEY,
ORDINANCE NO. O17-25
ORDINANCE NO. O17-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CHAPTER 6 (ANIMALS); AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Court of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Orr, 2014-Ohio-501.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100166 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MAXIE ORR, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
17-1591-cr United States v. Steve Papas UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF GEORGIA, Petitioner, Civil Action No. Inmate Number vs., Habeas Corpus Warden, Respondent (Name of Institution where you are now located) APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Rule Change #1998(14)
Rule Change #1998(14) Chapter 32. Colorado Appellate Rules Original Jurisdiction Certification of Questions of Law Rule 21. Procedure in Original Actions The entire existing C.A.R. Rule 21 is repealed
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-09-132-CV ELIZABETH ANN ALLMOND APPELLANT V. LOE, WARREN, ROSENFIELD, KAITCER, HIBBS & WINDSOR, P.C. AND MARK J. ROSENFIELD APPELLEES ------------
Alaska Animal Cruelty Laws
Introduction Alaska Animal Cruelty Laws Sarah Reese 1 Alaska s criminal animal protection laws can be found in Title 11 (Criminal Law) and Title 3 (Agriculture, Animals, and Food). Title 11 contains the
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Innocence Legal Team 1600 S. Main St., Suite 195 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925 948-9000 Attorney for Defendant COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE Case No. OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NO:SC STEVE LYNCH, Petitioner, 477 DCA CASE NO: 3D1-61 Vs. L.T. CASE NO: C
.t ON cro G IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Joy., P, SC NO:SC14-2065 STEVE LYNCH, Sy Petitioner, 477 DCA CASE NO: 3D1-61 Vs. L.T. CASE NO: 01-368-C HON. PAM BONDI-ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA, et
2017 CO 60. Osvaldo Corrales-Castro pled guilty to criminal impersonation and received a
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two October 16, 2018 STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 49322-5-II Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED OPERATING AGREEMENT HRCP II, L.L.C. November 1, 2016
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED OPERATING AGREEMENT OF HRCP II, L.L.C. November 1, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS... 3 1.01 Formation... 3 1.02 Name... 3 1.03 Principal Office... 3
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 93. September Term, 2006
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 93 September Term, 2006 FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLORZANO a/k/a FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLARZANO v. STATE OF
A Bill Regular Session, 2017 SENATE BILL 280
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 State of Arkansas st General Assembly As Engrossed: H// A Bill Regular Session, SENATE BILL 0 By: Senator
TENNESSEE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 3 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT: AVAILABILITY; METHOD OF INITIATION
TENNESSEE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 3 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT: AVAILABILITY; METHOD OF INITIATION [Amend Rule 3(b) and (c) by adding the underlined text and deleting the overstricken text below; paragraphs
DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 122
May 7 2013 DA 12-0199 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 122 WITTICH LAW FIRM, P.C. v. Plaintiff and Appellee, VALERY ANN O CONNELL and DANIEL O CONNELL, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL