Godak v. Bradford

Montana Supreme Court

Godak v. Bradford

532 P.2d 993, 166 Mont. 356, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 640

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 21, 1975

DocketNo. 12998

StatusPublished

This text of 532 P.2d 993 (Godak v. Bradford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godak v. Bradford, 532 P.2d 993, 166 Mont. 356, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 640 (Mo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

[357]*357Original proceeding. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the actions of a district judge in the case of The State of Montana vs. petitioner, pending in the district court of Cascade County.

We have considered the allegations of the petition and exhibits, and it appears that petitioner complains that certain property was seized under a search warrant, that thereafter it was inventoried, photographed, and a return made to the district court. That petitioner filed a motion to suppress and upon the hearing it appeared that certain money seized in the raid had disappeared. The petitioner further alleges: “Subsequent to the return to the court of the property and the inventory, certain monies were returned to the petitioner. Im addition, a sum of money which was not inventoried was returned to petitioner, identical to the amount which disappeared.”

We fail to observe anything which would move the discretion of this Court to grant the relief requested and it is, therefore denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

[357]*357Original proceeding. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the actions of a district judge in the case of The State of Montana vs. petitioner, pending in the district court of Cascade County.

We have considered the allegations of the petition and exhibits, and it appears that petitioner complains that certain property was seized under a search warrant, that thereafter it was inventoried, photographed, and a return made to the district court. That petitioner filed a motion to suppress and upon the hearing it appeared that certain money seized in the raid had disappeared. The petitioner further alleges: “Subsequent to the return to the court of the property and the inventory, certain monies were returned to the petitioner. Im addition, a sum of money which was not inventoried was returned to petitioner, identical to the amount which disappeared.”

We fail to observe anything which would move the discretion of this Court to grant the relief requested and it is, therefore denied and this proceeding is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 P.2d 993, 166 Mont. 356, 1975 Mont. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godak-v-bradford-mont-1975.