STATE v PRICE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
95-059 NO. IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsGREG PRICE, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Robert G. McCarthy; Hennessey, & Wing, Butte, Montana Joyce, McCarthy For Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Patricia J. Jordan, Ass't Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted Filed: on Briefs: Decided: May 25, 1995 June 20, 1995 Justice Karla Greg Judicial M. Gray delivered Price (Price) District the Opinion appeals Court, from We reverse 29, a jury order of dismissing the Eighth his appeal from and remand. On July convicted of an Cascade County, Court. City of the Court. 1994, Greg Price alcohol in the of the offenses and resisting arrest. City Court of driving of Great Falls under the influence He was sentenced on the same on August 12, date. Price filed and the 1994, Court. file The City of appeal absent the a notice of Great a timely entered subsequently on the basis case. of appeal appeal, briefing order its moved for the appeal the District After dismissing City Court was transferred Falls that in by dismissal was not Court the to lacked Price the appeal. District of the notice timely filed and, jurisdiction the parties, the District appeals over Court from that order. Did the District Section court to filing 46-17-311(2), a district written a judgment was filed is rendered Hartford, limited 741 we stated jurisdiction for a trial following that relied 1337, to appeal trial." that the dismissing right to a district to court 2 appeal? appeals from a city within Price's on State in Price's de nova be undertaken he was convicted Court P.2d in dismissing of intention 14 days after 254, err MCA, requires court notice The District Mont. Court "by 10 days after notice of appeal and sentenced. v. Hartford (1987), Price's appeal appeal. from is purely a court statutory 228 In of and that a district compliance There, court with 5 46-17-311, the notice day period does not acquire MCA. of appeal and, of the reaffirmed the Hartford Hartford, was not given as a result, dismissal jurisdiction 741 P.Zd Hartford, approach in 1338. lo- State district P.2d v. court's at 1338. (1988), Arthur We 234 75, 761 P.2d 806. Mont. Subsequent however, to the court's we decided State 1421. Schindler 51 St.Rep. The issue justice court dismissing v. Schindler (Mont. is controlling in Schindler to district order was whether court of Civil and the Montana Uniform City (Uniform Courts Rules) Schindler, 886 P.2d at 979. that is time Procedure; holidays are statute. Schindler, Schindler's appeal excluded We reach 46-17-311(2), that in Rule of appeal, filed. which 6 of four 1994. Price notice periods Applying that Justice since and Arthur. Rules provides Rules of Civil prescribed by those to the Rules notice had 10 days after of appeal intervening That 3 (Rules of 886 P.2d at 980. here. his the both weekend days and legal we concluded to file 12, adopted time Schindler, MCA. Excluding day was August for from that Procedure Rules intermediate computing the same result 29, 1994, within under 886 P.2d at 979-980. notice was timely been here. of appeal Rule 21 of the Uniform to be computed Rule 6 provides Rules of Civil had appeal, 886 P.2d 978, We observed and City Procedure) 1994), the notice was timely. Court Price's and dispositive the Montana Justice tenth at the 741 timely the statutory within we affirmed appeal. absent is the pursuant weekend days, day on which July to ยง the Price filed his notice We conclude We hold, of appeal. that therefore, that Price's notice the District of appeal Court was erred appeal. Reversed and remanded for further We concur: Chief Justice Justices / 4 proceedings. timely in dismissing filed. the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
