Legal Opinion

Hendershott v. Westphal

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 2011No. DA 10-0434PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Baker

¶ 1 Petitioner Heidi Hendershott appeals from the Eleventh Judicial District Court’s order denying her motion pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 59(g) to amend the final parenting plan by striking the provision requesting alternative dispute resolution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Pursuant to this Court’s order to seal the record in this case, we have limited any reference to sensitive confidential information in the following factual summary and include those facts necessary to our analysis of the issue presented. Petitioner Heidi Hendershott and respondent Jesse Westphal were married in 1999,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kulstad v. ManiaciMontana Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. BrendalMontana Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Montana Department of Natural Resources v. Clark Fork Logging Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1982
  4. In Re the Marriage of ChristianMontana Supreme Court · 1999

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Orden v. United Services Automobile Ass'nMontana Supreme Court · 2014
  2. CBI Inc. v. Sharon McCreaMontana Supreme Court · 2012
  3. In Re the Marriage of WolfMontana Supreme Court · 2011
  4. CBI Inc. v. Sharon McCreaMontana Supreme Court · 2012
  5. In Re the Marriage of WolfMontana Supreme Court · 2011

4 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