In re Alden

Montana Supreme Court

In re Alden

389 P.2d 164, 143 Mont. 319, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 261

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 17, 1964

DocketNo. 10739

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 389 P.2d 164 (In re Alden) 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

In re Alden, 389 P.2d 164, 143 Mont. 319, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 261 (Mo. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, an inmate of the Montana State Prison, appearing pro se, requests the issuance of a writ of mandate on the ground that he had filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis in a district court, wherein he had fixed a time limit of thirty days for action thereon; that such time limit has expired and no decision has been received.

While applications of this type are given preferred handling in all our courts there can easily exist circumstances which may result in delay. The district court is entitled to a reasonable time to consider the application and the petitioner has no right to fix a time limit for such consideration as he has done here.

[320]*320However, we will bring this matter to the attention of the district court by transmitting a copy of this memo opinion, and we are certain that as soon as reasonably possible the court will dispose of petitioner’s application.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, an inmate of the Montana State Prison, appearing pro se, requests the issuance of a writ of mandate on the ground that he had filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis in a district court, wherein he had fixed a time limit of thirty days for action thereon; that such time limit has expired and no decision has been received.

While applications of this type are given preferred handling in all our courts there can easily exist circumstances which may result in delay. The district court is entitled to a reasonable time to consider the application and the petitioner has no right to fix a time limit for such consideration as he has done here.

[320]*320However, we will bring this matter to the attention of the district court by transmitting a copy of this memo opinion, and we are certain that as soon as reasonably possible the court will dispose of petitioner’s application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 P.2d 164, 143 Mont. 319, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alden-mont-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack