J. Lee v. D. Skinner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
10/03/2023 DA 23-0063 Case Number: DA 23-0063 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2023 MT 187N JOE LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEAN SKINNER, Defendant and Appellee. CHRIS SKINNER, Defendant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADV-21-205 Honorable David J. Grubich, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Joe Lee, Self-represented, Sun River, Montana For Appellee: Brett Clark, Kristen Meredith, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: August 30, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023 Filed: v,,,6A•-if __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, 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 On March 23, 2020, the Eighth Judicial District Court issued Judgment in Favor of Dean L. Skinner dismissing the suit brought by Appellant, Joe Lee (Lee), with prejudice and ordering Lee to pay Appellee, Dean L. Skinner, attorney fees of $3,899. Lee appeals. In his Opening Brief, Lee sets forth no particular order from which he appeals, does not delineate any particular error on the part of the District Court, and provides no legal authority or citation to the record in support of any appeal. Instead, Lee asserts Chris and Dean Skinner assaulted him on April 5, 2020; he suffered a similar assault by others approximately 10 years ago; given the history of drug use in his area, he believes assaults are drug related; he hopes to get a judgment against the Skinners; and he hopes “things will work out.” Lee has failed to raise and present any appealable issue or any error on the part of the District Court. As such, there is nothing for us to review and we affirm. ¶3 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. 2 /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON We concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR /S/ JIM RICE 3
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.
