Legal Opinion

Stanford v. Rosebud County

Montana Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1992No. 92-190PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray

Appellants Boyd and Mavis Kincheloe appeal from an order of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, denying their Motion to Amend and Supplement their pleadings. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to amend their pleadings.

The facts in this case are set forth in our opinion in Stanford v. Rosebud County (1991), 251 Mont. 128, 822 P.2d 1074. Litigation over the disputed royalty interest began with an interpleader action in the federal district court in Billings, Montana, in 1978. On destruction of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. John H. Freeman, Jr., D/B/A Freeman Electric Gin Company v. Continental Gin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
  2. Hung Hy Nguyen Dba Mekong Market v. United States of America, Raymond Bertrand Dba Ray's Groceries v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  3. Prentice Lumber Co. v. HukillMontana Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Priest v. TaylorMontana Supreme Court · 1987
  5. White v. LobdellMontana Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Peuse v. MalkuchMontana Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Can., Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Edgewater Townhouse Homeowner's Ass'n v. HoltmanMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Geil v. Missoula Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 2004
  5. RSG Holdings v. Missoula Irrigation DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 2004

6 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