# State v. Greeno

> Montana Supreme Court · July 21, 1959 · 135 Mont. 580

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9844420

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERALD T. GREENO, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 21, 1959
- **Citations:** 135 Mont. 580; 342 P.2d 1052; 1959 Mont. LEXIS 70
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Adair
- **Judges:** Bottomly, Angstman, Castles, Adair, Loble, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9844420

## Opinion text

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
MR. JUSTICES BOTTOMLY and ADAIR:
Respondent’s petition for rehearing herein is hereby denied.
THE HONORABLE LESTER H. LOBLE, District Judge, sitting in place of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, (concurring in denial of petition for rehearing).
In the petition for a rehearing filed by the State, plaintiff and respondent, it is said and I quote:
“District Judge Loble concurred in the result of the decision but not in all of its reasoning. The specially concurring opinion of Judge Loble specifies no point at which his reasoning departs from that of the main opinion. Whether there was agreement on both grounds for granting the new trial is not at all clear to this respondent.”
The State of Montana, plaintiff and respondent, is entitled to have an answer to that inquiry. So that there may be a clarification of my views in concurring in the result arrived at in MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY’S decision, and further in my concurrence in the denial of the plaintiff and respondent’s petition for a rehearing — let it be stated that I concur in the result indicated solely upon the ground that in my opinion MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY, in his decision, correctly stated that a new trial should be granted the defendant and appellant by reason of the facts and circumstances shown, by the record, relating to the recantation of the testimony of the witness Armstrong, and which MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY discussed in the.first.part of his opinion. . .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9844420. Public record. Not legal advice.