Legal Opinion

Hollingsworth v. Ruckman

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1924No. 5,595PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The facts pleaded in the case at bar to which the motion to strike was directed were neither relevant nor pertinent, nor could they be made the subject of a material issue, and were only placed there by the pleader for the sole purpose of arousing passion and prejudice and enlisting sympathy for his client, which they did to plaintiff's detriment, as shown by the verdict and judgment, and we respectfully maintain that the motion to strike should have been sustained. (Sec. 9166, Rev. Codes, 1921; 21 R.C.L. 595; Kerr's Pleading Practice, secs. 740, 741;Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634, 95 Am. Dec.…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Koehler v. . AdlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. Purinton v. JamrockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  4. Tynan v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Reiger v. TurleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1911

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. St. Onge v. BlakelyMontana Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Cruse v. ClawsonMontana Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Edwards v. MuriMontana Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Stiemke v. JankovichMontana Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Komposh v. PowersMontana Supreme Court · 1926

5 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