Weber v. Price
This text of 2005 MT 292N (Weber v. Price) 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.
Opinion
No. 04-467
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 292N
DAVID WEBER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph W. Weber,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GREG T. PRICE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADV 2004-215, Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Greg T. Price, Pro Se, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Nathan J. Hoines, Hoines & Ferguson, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 2, 2005
Decided: November 22, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included
in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 Greg T. Price, appearing pro se, appeals from a default and judgment entered against
him in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. We affirm.
¶3 The dispositive issue is whether a default against Price was entered prior to the 20
days after service in which he was required to respond to the complaint pursuant to Rules
6(a) and 12(a), M.R.Civ.P.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that this appeal is without
merit. The complaint was served on Price on March 22, 2004. He did not respond and his
default was entered on April 14, 2004. The issue is factual, and there clearly is sufficient
evidence that Price failed to plead or otherwise defend within the 20 days allowed by law.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
2 /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ JIM RICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 MT 292N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-price-mont-2005.