Cases

JUSTICE REGINER specially concurs. ¶97 I agree with the Court’s Opinion and write separately to respond to the special concurrence and dissent of Justice Nelson. ¶98 I agree with most of Justice Nelson’s analysis and conclusion that it is difficult to sustain the Public Duty Doctrine in light of Article II, Section 18, of the Montana Cons

Banke, Judge. The appellant’s complaint, as amended, alleges that appellee, Dr. Hattaway, negligently performed an operation on his foot and breached an implied contract to provide proper medical care. This appeal follows the grant of summary judgment to the appellee. The appellee supported his motion with his own affidavit stating that he had exercised the “reasonable care and skill exercised under similar conditions and li

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.

Grice, Justice. Irwin Fitzpatrick brought suit against Massee-Felton Lumber Company and Joe Brown. The first count was for trespass, for cutting timber, with a prayer for damages. The second count was based on allegations appropriate to relief by injunction against the cutting of timber. The land involved consisted of lots 293, 294, 295, and 296 in the 24th district of Twiggs County. Brown was a nominal party, and filed no defen

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 354 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-21-229 Opinion Delivered September 28, 2022 JAMES S. BRANSCUM and APPEAL FROM THE PERRY COLETTE R. BRANSCUM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANTS\CROSS-APPELLEES [NO. 53CV-19-46] V.

July 26, 1913. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The petitioner, W.J. Massee, was arrested by sheriff of Spartanburg county under the mandate of his Excellency, Cole. L. Blease, Governor of South Carolina, issued on the 25th day of July, 1912, in accordance with a requisition from his Excellency, Ben W. Hooper, Governor of Tennessee. On the same day, upon the application of Massee, Hon. T.S. Sease, Circuit Judge, issued a writ of habeas corpus returnable in the afternoon of t

770 F.Supp.2d 1349 (2011) Cynthia WILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH, et al., Defendants. Case No. CV409-127. United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division. February 23, 2011. *1350 Linnie L. Darden, III, Jones, Osteen, Jones & Arnold, Hinesville, GA, W. Lamar Fields,

ORDER G.R. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the undersigned in this insurance coverage dispute is plaintiff Colony Insurance Company’s (Colony’s) motion to compel defendant 944 Abercorn, LCC’s (Abercorn’s) discovery responses. Doc. 34. Colony also moves to amend its complaint. Doc. 35. The resolution of the legal issues driving those motions may conflict with that of the district j

427 N.W.2d 285 (1988) Frances MAY, et al., Appellants, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, Massee, Leonard and Lindquist, et al., Respondents. No. C6-88-604. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. August 16, 1988. Review Denied October 26, 1988. *286 Greggory J. Woods, James H. Wills, Minneapolis, for ap

06/03/2025 DA 24-0356 Case Number: DA 24-0356 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2025 MT 113 MARK MULLEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WINTER SPORTS, INC., d/b/a WHITEFISH MOUNT

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 433 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-23-222 Opinion Delivered September 18, 2024 DIAMOND K INVESTMENTS, INC. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 23CV-22-470] V. HONORABLE

GRATTON, Judge. Edward Ray Christensen appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. He challenges the district court’s determination that his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An Idaho Department of Correction’s probation a

139 Ga. App. 243 (1976) 228 S.E.2d 156 WHITE v. ATLANTA PARKING SERVICE COMPANY. 52217. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Argued May 4, 1976. Decided June 14, 1976. Rehearing Denied July 8, 1976. White & Jewett, C. Lawrence Jewett, for appellant. Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Rege

Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. ***497¶1 Appellants Gerald and Patricia Renenger (collectively "Renengers") appeal the October 26, 2015 and June 9, 2017 Orders of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting the State's Motion to Dismiss and Jefferson County's Motion for Summary Judgment. W

04/09/2024 DA 22-0639 Case Number: DA 22-0639 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2024 MT 75 FORWARD MONTANA; LEO GALLAGHER; MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; GARY ZADICK, Plaintiff

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court. ***310¶ 1 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presented the following certified question to this Court on May 30, 2017: "Whether, under Montana law, the public duty doctrine shields a law enforcement officer from liability for negligence where the officer is the di

01/31/2024 DA 22-0639 Case Number: DA 22-0639 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2024 MT 19 FORWARD MONTANA; LEO GALLAGHER; MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; GARY ZADICK, Plaintiff

245 P.3d 620 (2010) 2010 OK CIV APP 143 Joe TIDWELL, Individually, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Robert BEZNER and his spouse, Jean Bezner, Defendants/Appellants. No. 107,474. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4. August 26, 2010. Thomas T. Ell

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge. hOn November 21, 2011, the Scott County Circuit Court ruled that a prescriptive easement had been acquired by the public for the use of Katie Drive, a roadway on appellant Gabino Acuna’s land that allows access to the parties’ property. The trial court further held that appellant was prohibited from placing a fence or cattle guard across Katie Drive or at the int

Per curiam. On further consideration of the record in the present case, this court holds that the application for writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, and accordingly this case is dismissed. Dismissed. All the Justices concur.