Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of Anderson

    218 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting an argument that “devisees, children, spouses, creditors, and beneficiaries” can be interested persons without having a property right in or claim against the estate

    However, where the movant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4), on the ground that the judgment is void, we review the district court's ruling de novo, as the determination that a judgment is or is not void is a conclusion of law. Essex, ¶ 16 (citing Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995) ("We review de novo . . . a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one.")); see Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc., 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449 (1997). DISCUSSION

  2. Essex Ins. Co. v. Moose's Saloon, Inc.

    338 Mont. 423 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 84 times
    Stating that relief under Montana Rule 60(b) is appropriate where " extraordinary circumstances; the movant acted to set aside the judgment within a reasonable period of time; and the movant was blameless."

    By contrast, where the movant sought relief under subsection (4) of Rule 60(b) on the ground that the judgment is void, the standard of review is de novo, since the determination that a judgment is or is not void is a conclusion of law. Export Group, 54 F.3d at 1469 ("We review de novo . . . a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one."); see also Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc., 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449 (1997). In In re Marriage of Zacher, 2004 MT 249, 323 Mont. 54, 98 P.3d 309, the appellant had filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(4), which was deemed denied by operation of law.

  3. Infinity Insurance Company v. Dodson

    302 Mont. 209 (Mont. 2000)   Cited 30 times

    ¶ 18 When we review a district court's conclusions of law, our standard of review is plenary and we must determine whether the court's conclusions are correct as a matter of law. See Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc. (1997), 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449. DISCUSSION

  4. McKirdy v. Vielleux

    19 P.3d 207 (Mont. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    When we review a district court's conclusions of law, our standard of review is plenary and we must determine whether the court's conclusions are correct as a matter of law. See Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc. (1997), 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449. DISCUSSION

  5. Lane v. Farmers Union Insurance

    296 Mont. 267 (Mont. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    Acknowledging the "general rule" that a default judgment carries no collateral estoppel effect

    ¶ 15 When we review a district court's conclusions of law, our standard of review is plenary and we must determine whether the court's conclusions are correct as a matter of law. See Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc. (1997), 283 Mont. 298, 301, 940 P.2d 447, 449. ¶ 16 Under our de novo review, if we find any material facts remain in dispute regarding the relevant acts committed by Brad Lane, then summary judgment was improper.

  6. Skyline Sportsmen's Assoc. v. Bd. of Land Comm

    286 Mont. 108 (Mont. 1997)   Cited 11 times
    In Skyline Sportsmen's Assn. v. Bd. of Land Commrs., 286 Mont. 108, 951 P.2d 29 (1997), we concluded that it was appropriate for the district court in that case to accept new evidence and not to limit its review to the administrative record.

    This Court's review of legal decisions is plenary as no exercise of discretion is necessary to those decisions — the legal conclusion is either correct or not. Hicklin v. CSC Logic, Inc. (1997), 1283 Mont. 2981, 940 P.2d 447, 449; Erickson v. State ex rel. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1997), [ 282 Mont. 367], 938 P.2d 625, 628. When conducting its plenary review of a district court's review of an informal administrative decision, this Court follows the same standard as the district court, namely, does the record before the administrative body establish it acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully.