Legal Opinion

Hoenstine v. Rose

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1957No. 9474PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE ADAIR:

Action in tort for damages. On November 10, 1952, by complaint filed in the district court for Beaverhead County, Montana, Harry Hoenstine, as plaintiff, commenced this suit against the defendant, Standford Rose, to recover for damage done to plaintiff’s automobile. From a judgment for the plaintiff entered on a jury’s verdict, the defendant, Stanford Rose, has appealed specifying as error the trial court’s refusal: (1) To grant defendant’s motion for non-suit, (2) to grant his motion for a directed verdict, and (3) to enter judgment in his favor.

Plaintiff’s complaint…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Marland Refining Co. v. DuffySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  2. Newman v. BROWNSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  3. Coleman v. LevkoffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  4. Kincaid v. DunnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  5. Chambers v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Wahpeton v. Drake-Henne, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Jessen v. O'DANIELDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1962
  3. Walden v. Yellowstone ElectricMontana Supreme Court · 2021
  4. Central Copters, Inc. v. Kaman Aerospace CorporationDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2025
  5. Central Copters, Inc. v. Kaman Aerospace CorporationDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2025

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API