Legal Opinion

Bordeaux v. Bordeaux

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 13, 1905No. 1,787PublishedCited by 86 opinions

On rehearing.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Brantlt

It is not necessary to state again the issues presented by the pleadings and tried in the district court. These are stated in full in the former opinion. (30 Mont. 36, 75 Pac. 521.) At the former hearing the respondent was not represented by counsel, nor was a brief filed in his behalf. A rehearing was granted for the reason that the court was in doubt whether its decision in the case was not based upon considerations which were not properly presented by the record. We shall first notice the contentions of the parties as to the correctness of the conclusions stated in the former opinion, and…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Randall v. Burk TownshipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Finlen v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Smith v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  5. City of Butte v. PaltrovichMontana Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by86 opinions

  1. Finlen v. HeinzeMontana Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Phinizy v. PhinizySupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  3. Gibson v. Morris State BankMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Pope v. AlexanderMontana Supreme Court · 1907
  5. State ex rel. Wooten v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1920

81 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