Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Marriage of Hardin

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 2008No. DA 07-0142Published

1DissentJustice Nelson

¶22 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s Opinion.

¶23 First, the “compensation” granted to Michael (Opinion, ¶ 19) is illusory. Granting Michael part of a day to retain counsel when the trial had already begun and then allowing him thirty days to retain counsel after the trial had ended is no accommodation at all. No attorney is going to walk into a contested case mid-trial without any opportunity to educate himself or herself about the client and the case or, even worse, try to salvage a case after the trial is over and the *262damage has been done. The court’s “compensation” to Michael was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Maulding v. HardmanMontana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Endresse v. Van VleetMontana Supreme Court · 1946
  3. McPartlin v. FransenMontana Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Quantum Electric, Inc. v. SchaefferMontana Supreme Court · 2003
  5. In Re the Marriage of NenemanMontana Supreme Court · 1985

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