Legal Opinion

State v. Ryan

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Eighth Judicial Distinct, Cascade County. Defendant was tried before Benton, J.

1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.

—A point of practice suggested by the attorney-general must be first noticed. He contends that the order denying a new trial cannot be reviewed, because no notice of motion for a new trial was filed in the District Court. (State v. Fry, 10 Mont. 407.) It is true that the record does not contain a full copy of the notice of motion, but the bill of exceptions in the transcript states that defendant gave notice that he would move for a new trial, and may be reasonably construed to state, in effect, that he gave this notice as provided by law. The other construction would be the strongest one…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. CroninCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. State v. NelsonNevada Supreme Court · 1876
  3. People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. People v. PadilliaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  5. People v. KerrickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. RiggsMontana Supreme Court · 1921
  2. State v. DukichWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  3. State v. DotsonMontana Supreme Court · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API