Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Woodard v. District Court of Fourteenth Judicial District

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1948No. 8789Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Angstman

I concur in the result reached by my associates that the motion to quash the writ should be sustained and the proceeding dismissed, but I do not arrive at that result so reluctantly as do my associates.

The statute relating to perpetuation of testimony provides that the applicant must produce a petition stating among other things: “a general outline of the facts expected to be proved.’’ See. 10687, Dev. Codes. This very language shows clearly that fhe applicant need not set out the facts expected to be proved with the same particularity necessary to the statement of a cause of action in a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Pitcher v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1943
  2. State Ex Rel. Smith v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1941
  3. State ex rel. Holcomb v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API