abuse of discretion standard in Montana

2016The abuse of discretion inquiry is “not whether this Court would have reached the same decision, but, whether the district court acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason.” Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp., 2012 MT 242, ¶ 17 , 366 Mont. 450 , 288 P.3d 193 (quoting Newman v. Lichfield, 2012 MT 47, ¶ 22 , 364 Mont. 243 , 272 P.3d 625 ) (emphasis added). ¶39 Even if an insurer breaches its duty to its insured, it is still entitled to have a district court make a determination of the reasonableness of a settlement; however the settlement is presumed to

2016The abuse of discretion inquiry is “not whether this Court would have reached the same decision, but, whether the district court acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason.” Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp., 2012 MT 242, ¶ 17 , 366 Mont. 450 , 288 P.3d 193 (quoting Newman v. Lichfield, 2012 MT 47, ¶ 22 , 364 Mont. 243 , 272 P.3d 625 ) (emphasis added). ¶39 Even if an insurer breaches its duty to its insured, it is still entitled to have a district court make a determination of the reasonableness of a settlement; however the settlement is presumed to

2012State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 309 Mont. 1 , 43 P.3d 318 (concluding that the banishment condition was unnecessarily broad and severe); State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85, ¶¶ 24-25 , 320 Mont. 490 , 87 P.3d 1017 (concluding that the 40-year driving prohibition was unreasonable in terms of its harshness and duration); cf. United States v. Doe, 79 F.3d 1309, 1319 (2d Cir. 1996) (“While a sentencing court has broad discretion in fixing conditions of probation, and we therefore review a sentence of probation under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we carefully scrutinize unusual and severe conditions

2012State v. Muhammad, 2002 MT 47, ¶ 28 , 309 Mont. 1 , 43 P.3d 318 (concluding that the banishment condition was unnecessarily broad and severe); State v. Herd, 2004 MT 85, ¶¶ 24-25 , 320 Mont. 490 , 87 P.3d 1017 (concluding that the 40-year driving prohibition was unreasonable in terms of its harshness and duration); cf. United States v. Doe, 79 F.3d 1309, 1319 (2d Cir. 1996) (“While a sentencing court has broad discretion in fixing conditions of probation, and we therefore review a sentence of probation under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we carefully scrutinize unusual and severe conditions

2010Assn. v. Amsden, LLC, 2007 MT 286, ¶ 12 , 339 Mont. 445 , 171 P.3d 690 , for the proposition that, under Rule 15, we review a decision denying leave to amend under the abuse of discretion standard.

2010Assn. v. Amsden, LLC, 2007 MT 286, ¶ 12 , 339 Mont. 445 , 171 P.3d 690 , for the proposition that, under Rule 15, we review a decision denying leave to amend under the abuse of discretion standard.

2007In re Custody and Parental Rights of C.J.K., 2005 3 MT 67 , ¶ 13, 326 Mont. 289, ¶ 13 , 109 P.3d 232, ¶ 13 .

2007In re Custody and Parental Rights of C.J.K., 2005 3 MT 67 , ¶ 13, 326 Mont. 289, ¶ 13 , 109 P.3d 232, ¶ 13 .

2022State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 459 , 461 P.3d 108 .

2022State v. Jardee, 2020 MT 81, ¶ 5 , 399 Mont. 459 , 461 P.3d 108 .

2016The abuse of discretion inquiry is “not whether this Court would have reached the same decision, but, whether the district court acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason.” Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp., 2012 MT 242, ¶ 17 , 366 Mont. 450 , 288 P.3d 193 (quoting Newman v. Lichfield, 2012 MT 47, ¶ 22 , 364 Mont. 243 , 272 P.3d 625 ) (emphasis added). ¶39 Even if an insurer breaches its duty to its insured, it is still entitled to have a district court make a determination of the reasonableness of a settlement; however the settlement is presumed to

2016The abuse of discretion inquiry is “not whether this Court would have reached the same decision, but, whether the district court acted arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason.” Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp., 2012 MT 242, ¶ 17 , 366 Mont. 450 , 288 P.3d 193 (quoting Newman v. Lichfield, 2012 MT 47, ¶ 22 , 364 Mont. 243 , 272 P.3d 625 ) (emphasis added). ¶39 Even if an insurer breaches its duty to its insured, it is still entitled to have a district court make a determination of the reasonableness of a settlement; however the settlement is presumed to

2014Robbins, 954 F.2d at 682 . ¶46 Similar reasoning may have influenced our adoption of the abuse of discretion standard in Duchscher v. Vaile, 269 Mont. 1, 5 , 887 P.2d 181, 184 (1994), where we took the standard—without discussion—from an Arizona decision that followed a policy of deference to the trial court.

2014Robbins, 954 F.2d at 682 . ¶46 Similar reasoning may have influenced our adoption of the abuse of discretion standard in Duchscher v. Voile, 269 Mont. 1, 5 , 887 P.2d 181, 184 (1994), where we took the standard — without discussion — from an Arizona decision that followed a polity of deference to the trial court.

2013O.J. has set forth an abuse of discretion standard citing In re 2007 MT 216 , ¶ 22, 339 Mont. 28 , 168 P.3d 629 , and In re V.F.A., 2005 MT 76, ¶ 6 , 326 Mont. 383 , 109 P.3d 749 .

2013O.J. has set forth an abuse of discretion standard citing In re 2007 MT 216 , ¶ 22, 339 Mont. 28 , 168 P.3d 629 , and In re V.F.A., 2005 MT 76, ¶ 6 , 326 Mont. 383 , 109 P.3d 749 .

2013O.J. has set forth an abuse of discretion standard citing In re 2007 MT 216 , ¶ 22, 339 Mont. 28 , 168 P.3d 629 , and In re V.F.A., 2005 MT 76, ¶ 6 , 326 Mont. 383 , 109 P.3d 749 .

2013O.J. has set forth an abuse of discretion standard citing In re 2007 MT 216 , ¶ 22, 339 Mont. 28 , 168 P.3d 629 , and In re V.F.A., 2005 MT 76, ¶ 6 , 326 Mont. 383 , 109 P.3d 749 .

2011Relying on In re L.S., 2009 MT 83, ¶ 18 , 349 Mont. 518 , 204 P.3d 707 , D.K.D. urges us to apply a de novo standard to the District Court's legal conclusions and statutory interpretations, and an abuse of discretion standard to the court's discretionary rulings, which include administration and evidentiary issues.

2011Relying on In re L.S., 2009 MT 83, ¶ 18 , 349 Mont. 518 , 204 P.3d 707 , D.K.D. urges us to apply a de novo standard to the District Court’s legal conclusions and statutory interpretations, and an abuse of discretion standard to the court’s discretionary rulings, which include administration and evidentiary issues.

2011Citing In re S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶ 8 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 , the State urges us to apply the clearly erroneous standard to the court’s findings of fact and the correctness standard to its conclusions of law. ¶12 We conclude that D.K.D.’s reliance on the standard of review as set forth in ¶ 18 of In re L.S. is inappropriate.

2011Citing In re S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶ 8 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 , the State urges us to apply the clearly erroneous standard to the court’s findings of fact and the correctness standard to its conclusions of law. ¶12 We conclude that D.K.D.’s reliance on the standard of review as set forth in ¶ 18 of In re L.S. is inappropriate.

2011Id.

2008Engelsberger v. Lake Co., 2007 MT 211, ¶ 11 , 339 Mont. 22, ¶ 11 , 167 P.3d 902, ¶ 11 .

2011Relying on In re L.S., 2009 MT 83, ¶ 18 , 349 Mont. 518 , 204 P.3d 707 , D.K.D. urges us to apply a de novo standard to the District Court’s legal conclusions and statutory interpretations, and an abuse of discretion standard to the court’s discretionary rulings, which include administration and evidentiary issues.

2011Relying on In re L.S., 2009 MT 83, ¶ 18 , 349 Mont. 518 , 204 P.3d 707 , D.K.D. urges us to apply a de novo standard to the District Court’s legal conclusions and statutory interpretations, and an abuse of discretion standard to the court’s discretionary rulings, which include administration and evidentiary issues.

2009See State v. Crosley, 2009 MT 126, ¶ 26 , 350 Mont. 223 , 206 P.3d 932 ; Bar-Jonah , ¶ 97; State v. Aakre, 2002 MT 101, ¶ 8 , 309 Mont. 403 , 46 P.3d 648 (concerning admission of evidence of other acts of a defendant under M.

2009See State v. Crosley, 2009 MT 126, ¶ 26 , 350 Mont. 223 , 206 P.3d 932 ; Bar-Jonah , ¶ 97; State v. Aakre, 2002 MT 101, ¶ 8 , 309 Mont. 403 , 46 P.3d 648 (concerning admission of evidence of other acts of a defendant under M.

2008State v. McCaslin, 2004 MT 212, ¶ 17 , 322 Mont. 350, ¶ 17 , 96 P.3d 722, ¶ 17 .

2008State v. McCaslin, 2004 MT 212, ¶ 17 , 322 Mont. 350, ¶ 17 , 96 P.3d 722, ¶ 17 .

2008CONCLUSION ¶43 Although a district court’s decision whether to grant a new trial is normally subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard, Jenks v. Bertelson, 2004 MT 50, ¶ 12 , 320 Mont. 139, ¶ 12 , 86 P.3d 24, ¶ 12 , the issues raised here require us to determine whether the District Court’s actions were lawful under the statutes, not whether discretion was appropriately exercised.

2008CONCLUSION ¶43 Although a district court’s decision whether to grant a new trial is normally subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard, Jenks v. Bertelson, 2004 MT 50, ¶ 12 , 320 Mont. 139, ¶ 12 , 86 P.3d 24, ¶ 12 , the issues raised here require us to determine whether the District Court’s actions were lawful under the statutes, not whether discretion was appropriately exercised.

2007Miranti v. Orms, 253 Mont. 231 , 833 P.2d 164 (1992). ¶17 We apply the abuse of discretion standard to our review of an award of damages.

2007Miranti v. Orms, 253 Mont. 231 , 833 P.2d 164 (1992). ¶17 We apply the abuse of discretion standard to our review of an award of damages.

2005In Shackleton v. Neil (1983), 207 Mont. 96, 101 , 672 P.2d 1112, 1115 , this Court set forth a ‘tule of thumb” for reviewing decisions on motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute: “A rule of thumb as to the meaning of the abuse of discretion standard provides that the trial court’s exercise of discretion should not be disturbed unless there is a ‘definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.’” Shackleton, 207 Mont. at 101 , 672 P.2d at 1115 (quoting Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima

2005In Shackleton v. Neil (1983), 207 Mont. 96, 101 , 672 P.2d 1112, 1115 , this Court set forth a "rule of thumb" for reviewing decisions on motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute: "A rule of thumb as to the meaning of the abuse of discretion standard provides that the trial court's exercise of discretion should not be disturbed unless there is a `definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.'" Shackleton, 207 Mont. at 101 , 672 P.2d at 1115 (quoting Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima

2000In re Marriage of Sacry (1992), 253 Mont. 378, 381 , 833 P.2d 1035, 1037 ; In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 317 , 833 P.2d 215, 219 .

2000In re Marriage of Sacry (1992), 253 Mont. 378, 381 , 833 P.2d 1035, 1037 ; In re Marriage of Danelson (1992), 253 Mont. 310, 317 , 833 P.2d 215, 219 .