Gunderson v. Brewster

20 Citing cases

  1. Waller v. Hayden

    268 Mont. 204 (Mont. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    The trial court's determination of relevancy is subject to review only in the case of manifest abuse. See also Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589; Cech v. State (1979) [184] Mont. [522], 604 P.2d 97, 36 St.Rep. 2185. Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion.

  2. Watkins v. Williams

    877 P.2d 19 (Mont. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    [1, 2] We review a district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law to determine whether the conclusions are correct. Steer, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 803 P.2d 601. Regarding questions concerning the admissibility of evidence, the "question[s] . . . must in every case be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse." Cech v. State (1979), 184 Mont. 522, 604 P.2d 97, citing Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. ISSUE ONE

  3. State v. Van Dyken

    242 Mont. 415 (Mont. 1990)   Cited 33 times
    Noting that "a defendant can properly be convicted of deliberate homicide even though he may not have intended that the death result from the act where he contemplated the same kind of harm or injury to the victim."

    The above rules, however, are subject to Rule 403, M.R.Evid Evidence, although relevant, may nonetheless be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by its potential for prejudice Rule 403, M.R.Evid. Furthermore, this Court has consistently held that "the question of admissibility of evidence must in every case be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse." Cech v State (1979), 184 Mont. 522, 531-32, 604 P.2d 97, 102; Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589; Moen v. Peter Kiewit Sons, Co. (1982), 201 Mont. 425, 655 P.2d 482. This discretion includes wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Cash v Otis Elevator Co. (1984), 210 Mont. 319, 332, 684 P.2d 1041, 1048; Krohmer v. Dahl (1965), 145 Mont. 491, 402 P.2d 979

  4. Finstad v. Montana Power Company

    785 P.2d 1372 (Mont. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Overturning a jury verdict and holding that an employee's refusal to agree to a transfer, and subsequent exit after being asked to turn in his keys and vacate the office, did not amount to actual or constructive discharge

    "The District Court has broad discretion to grant or deny motions for new trial and his rulings will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a clear showing of manifest abuse of discretion." Brothers v. Town of Virginia City (1976), 171 Mont. 352, 558 P.2d 464, 467; Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589, 593. In spite of the denial of these post-trial motions by the District Court, the majority of this Court, without hearing the testimony of a single witness, or observing the demeanor of a single witness, based on its "factual" review of the evidence, set aside the jury verdict.

  5. Welnel v. Hall

    694 P.2d 1346 (Mont. 1985)   Cited 4 times
    In Welnel, the witness at issue was to testify about seeing a black Harley-Davidson motorcycle ridden by a bushy-haired man wearing a black leather jacket traveling at a high rate of speed.

    However, even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading of the jury, Rule 403 M.R.Evid. This determination of admissibility is within the discretion of the trial judge ( State v. Rollins (1967), 149 Mont. 481, 428 P.2d 962) and will not be disturbed unless there is manifest abuse ( Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling Herberg's testimony inadmissible.

  6. Preston v. McDonnell

    203 Mont. 64 (Mont. 1983)   Cited 13 times
    In Preston v. McDonnell (1983), 203 Mont. 64, 67, 659 P.2d 276, 277, we held that in considering whether evidence was relevant, a trial court could consider the remoteness of the proffered evidence.

    The trial court's determination of relevancy is subject to review only in the case of manifest abuse. See also Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589; Cech v. State (1979), Mont., 604 P.2d 97, 36 St.Rep. 2185. Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion.

  7. Moen v. Peter Kiewit & Sons' Co.

    201 Mont. 425 (Mont. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that while the Workers' Compensation Court is not governed by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, it "may be guided by them" and that reference to them is acceptable

    This Court has consistently held that the question of admissibility of evidence in every case must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse. Cech v. State (1979), Mont., 604 P.2d 97, 102, 36 St.Rep. 2185, 2192; Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing James McCarthy's testimony into evidence.

  8. Cremer v. Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock Co.

    192 Mont. 208 (Mont. 1981)   Cited 29 times
    Distinguishing acquiescence from permission

    Meinecke v. Skaggs (1949), 123 Mont. 308, 313, 213 P.2d 237, 240. Affirmed, Wollan v. Lord (1963), 142 Mont. 498, 385 P.2d 102. The Meinecke rule is not absolute, however, and this Court remains mindful of its limitations. In Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 411, 466 P.2d 589, 592, Mr. Chief Justice Harrison wrote that the "right to instructions adaptable to a party's theory of the case if there be credible evidence thereon, belongs to both parties, not just to one." Emphasis supplied.

  9. Cech v. State

    604 P.2d 97 (Mont. 1979)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that evidence of the installation of a guardrail following an accident was admissible to refute defendant's contentions that recovery areas were preferable to guardrails with respect to safety and economics

    In Lawlor v. County of Flathead (1978), 177 Mont. 508, 582 P.2d 751, we found that repair of a chuckhole by the county two days after an accident occurred was admissible to establish feasibility of repair, and to impeach the testimony given by a county road foreman. The point on which this decision turns should be governed by the appellate rule that the question of admissibility of evidence must in every case be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse. Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. Affirmed.

  10. Cech v. State

    183 Mont. 75 (Mont. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    The point on which this decision turns should be governed by the appellate rule that the question of admissibility of evidence must in every case be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review only in case of manifest abuse. Gunderson v. Brewster (1970), 154 Mont. 405, 466 P.2d 589. I would sustain the judgments.