Hall v. Kircher Boyne Usa

Montana Supreme Court

Hall v. Kircher Boyne Usa

2006 MT 186, 333 Mont. 99

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 2006

Docket05-672

StatusPublished

This text of 2006 MT 186 (Hall v. Kircher Boyne Usa) 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

Hall v. Kircher Boyne Usa, 2006 MT 186, 333 Mont. 99 (Mo. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

¶1 Counsel for the parties to this appeal have filed a stipulation for dismissal. Their stipulation asks us to remand this case to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court “with instructions to dismiss the case with prejudice[.]”

¶2 Rule 36, M.R.App.P., allows for the voluntary dismissal of an appeal upon stipulation of the parties. Neither Rule 36 nor any other rule of appellate procedure contemplates this Court’s remand of a case, upon the parties’ stipulation, with instructions for the trial court to dismiss, as was requested here, or with instructions for the trial court to approve the parties’ stipulation, as we sometimes have been asked to do in the past. See, e.g., Peterson v. Montana Schools Group Insurance Authority, Cause No. DA 06-0363 dismissal order (July 26, 2006).

¶3 We have, in the past, remanded cases upon stipulation of the parties for the trial court’s consideration of whether to approve a settlement agreement. We will continue to do so. The stipulation presently before us, however, appears to condition our dismissal upon a remand to the District Court with instructions.

¶4 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for dismissal is DENIED, without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to mail true copies of this order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Karla M. Gray, Chief Justice /s/ John Warner, Justice /s/ Patricia Cotter, Justice /s/ W. William Leaphart, Justice /S/ Jim Rice, Justice

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

OPINION AND ORDER

¶1 Counsel for the parties to this appeal have filed a stipulation for dismissal. Their stipulation asks us to remand this case to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court “with instructions to dismiss the case with prejudice[.]”

¶2 Rule 36, M.R.App.P., allows for the voluntary dismissal of an appeal upon stipulation of the parties. Neither Rule 36 nor any other rule of appellate procedure contemplates this Court’s remand of a case, upon the parties’ stipulation, with instructions for the trial court to dismiss, as was requested here, or with instructions for the trial court to approve the parties’ stipulation, as we sometimes have been asked to do in the past. See, e.g., Peterson v. Montana Schools Group Insurance Authority, Cause No. DA 06-0363 dismissal order (July 26, 2006).

¶3 We have, in the past, remanded cases upon stipulation of the parties for the trial court’s consideration of whether to approve a settlement agreement. We will continue to do so. The stipulation presently before us, however, appears to condition our dismissal upon a remand to the District Court with instructions.

¶4 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation for dismissal is DENIED, without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to mail true copies of this order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Karla M. Gray, Chief Justice /s/ John Warner, Justice /s/ Patricia Cotter, Justice /s/ W. William Leaphart, Justice /S/ Jim Rice, Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2006 MT 186, 333 Mont. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-kircher-boyne-usa-mont-2006.