Legal Opinion
Eisenman v. State
Montana Supreme Court
Decided July 6, 2000No. 00-204PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*323OPINION AND ORDER
¶1 Before this Court is Eisenman’s pro se application for writ of supervisory control and motion to proceed informa pauperis. Eisenman grounds his application in our recent decision, MacPheat v. Mahoney, 2000 MT 62, [299 Mont. 46], 997 P.2d 753, and requests that we remand this case to the District Court for fact-finding as we did in MacPheat.
¶2 The State responded to the application for writ of supervisory control and requested that we deny the application on the basis that MacPheat should not be applied retroactively to cases that have already become final. The State also…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Peyton v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Montana v. EgelhoffSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Garlotte v. FordiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- State v. GuillaumeMontana Supreme Court · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sebastian v. MahoneyMontana Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. CarsonMontana Supreme Court · 2002
- Eisenman v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 2000
- Sebastian v. MahoneyMontana Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. BergMontana Supreme Court · 2016
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.