Albinger v. Harris

Supreme Court of Montana
48 P.3d 711 (2002)


Facts

In 1995, Albinger (plaintiff) and Harris (defendant) began a tumultuous, three-year relationship. In December of that year, Albinger gave Harris a diamond ring. After some initial hesitation, Harris accepted and the parties agreed upon a wedding date. This wedding date was subsequently cancelled, with Harris returning the diamond ring to Albinger. The parties reunited soon thereafter, and Albinger gave the ring to Harris once again. The parties endured several more failed engagements, with the ring being returned to Albinger upon each separation, only to be given back promptly to Harris upon reuniting. At the parties’ final separation, Albinger insisted that Harris take all of the items he gave her, including the ring, and never return. Albinger later brought an action against Harris to have the ring returned. The district court determined that the ring was a conditional gift, to be completed upon the parties’ marriage. As the parties did not marry, the district court ruled that the ring should be returned to Albinger, as all of the gift’s conditions were not satisfied. Harris petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is for members only. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Issue

The issue section is for members only and includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section is for members only and includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Concurrence/Dissent

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, please login or give Quimbee a try, it's free to get started.

Here's why 10,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 7,515 briefs - keyed to 85 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now