NYE MEYER v HANDO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 90-402 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 NYE & MEYER, P.C., plaintiff and ~espondent, v. EMMA JEAN HAND01 ~efendantand ~ppellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Don Edgar Burris, Esq., Billings, Montana For Respondent: Jerrold L. Nye, Esq., Nye Montana & Meyer, P.C., Billings, Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: November 8, 1990 December 11, 1990 Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. Emma Jean Hando appeals from an order of the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial ~istrict, Yellowstone County. That order, entered pursuant to the parties1 stipulation, dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Nye fees & Meyer, P.C., brought this action to recover attorney for representing Hando disability benefits. Hando claim for Social counterclaimed for in a Security intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and malpractice. Both parties moved for summary judgment. At a May 30, 1990, hearing, the parties orally stipulated that this matter was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court so ordered. Hando then acquired new counsel who attempted to have the order of dismissal reconsidered and now appeals to this Court arguing that the stipulation is not binding and that the case should be reinstated. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. In re Marriage of Cox (1987), 226 Mont. 176, 179, 736 P.2d 97, 99. However, it does not follow that the presence of subject matter jurisdiction may be re-claimed following a stipulation that it is absent and an order of dismissal. We hold that Hando is bound by her stipulation and the order dismissing this case. requests for sanctions are denied. Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. Both parties1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company. Chief Justice We concur: 4
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.
