indulges presumption in Montana

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1962The rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is as follows: “ * * this court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and will draw every legitimate inference therefrom to support the presumption.’ [Havre Irrigation Co. v. Majerus, 132 Mont. 410 , 318 P.2d 1076 .] “Also our inquiry into the evidence is limited to whether *127 the findings of the trial court are supportable when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” In re Rudd’s Estate, 140 Mont. 170 , 369 P.2d 526 .

1962The rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is as follows: “ * * this court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and will draw every legitimate inference therefrom to support the presumption.’ [Havre Irrigation Co. v. Majerus, 132 Mont. 410 , 318 P.2d 1076 .] “Also our inquiry into the evidence is limited to whether *127 the findings of the trial court are supportable when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” In re Rudd’s Estate, 140 Mont. 170 , 369 P.2d 526 .

1957Thomas v. Ball, 66 Mont. 161 , 213 P. 597 .

1957Thomas v. Ball, 66 Mont. 161 , 213 P. 597 .

1996Thus, we have held that "this Court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the district court is correct and will be upheld unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the burden of showing which rests upon the appellant." Kamp v. First National Bank and Trust Co. (1973), 161 Mont. 103, 106 , 504 P.2d 987, 989 .

1996Thus, we have held that "this Court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the district court is correct and will be upheld unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the burden of showing which rests upon the appellant." Kamp v. First National Bank and Trust Co. (1973), 161 Mont. 103, 106 , 504 P.2d 987, 989 .

1996Similarly, in Walsh v. Ellingson Agency (1980), 188 Mont. 367, 373 , 613 P.2d 1381, 1384 , we stated that the appellant has the burden of showing that the district court erred and that this Court will not reverse the district court absent the demonstration of such error. 4 Having read the briefs and examined the record in this case, we conclude simply, and without trying to analyze and discuss the various confusing arguments raised in the briefs, that neither the appellant northe cross-appellant has met its burden to demonstrate in any clear or convincing fashion in what respect the trial cour

1996Similarly, in Walsh v. Ellingson Agency (1980), 188 Mont. 367, 373 , 613 P.2d 1381, 1384 , we stated that the appellant has the burden of showing that the district court erred and that this Court will not reverse the district court absent the demonstration of such error. 4 Having read the briefs and examined the record in this case, we conclude simply, and without trying to analyze and discuss the various confusing arguments raised in the briefs, that neither the appellant northe cross-appellant has met its burden to demonstrate in any clear or convincing fashion in what respect the trial cour

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1963Copper & Silver Mining Co., 39 Mont. 487 , 104 P. 540 (1909). *395 In Finlen v. Heinze, 32 Mont. 354, 380 , 80 P. 918, 924 (1905), we stated that "it is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the preponderance of the evidence is against the findings of the trial court, before we will disturb such findings upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.” This rule has been repeated in many cases, the last being Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123 , 375 P.2d 541 , wherein we recognized that the rule with respect to reversing a finding of fact by the district court in an equity action is that this

1963Kommers v. Palagi, 111 Mont. 293 , 108 P.2d 208 , and that such findings of fact will not be overturned unless there is a preponderance of the evidence against them.

1963Kommers v. Palagi, 111 Mont. 293 , 108 P.2d 208 , and that such findings of fact will not be overturned unless there is a preponderance of the evidence against them.

1939(Herberson v. Great Falls Wood & Coal Co., 83 Mont. 527, 533 , 273 Pac. 294 .) (3) That the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed or reversed if the evidence, fully considered, furnishes reasonable grounds for different conclusions.

1939(Herberson v. Great Falls Wood & Coal Co., 83 Mont. 527, 533 , 273 Pac. 294 .) (3) That the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed or reversed if the evidence, fully considered, furnishes reasonable grounds for different conclusions.

1939Co., 103 Mont. 599, 610 , 64 Pac. (2d) 1071 .) (2) That this court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the district court is correct and will be upheld unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the burden of showing which rests upon the appellant.

1939Co., 103 Mont. 599, 610 , 64 Pac. (2d) 1071 .) (2) That this court indulges the presumption that the judgment of the district court is correct and will be upheld unless clearly shown to be erroneous, the burden of showing which rests upon the appellant.

1929(State v. Rocky Mountain Elevator Co., 52 Mont. 487 , 158 Pac. 818 ; Dover Lumber Co. v. Whitcomb, 54 Mont. 141 , 168 Pac. 947 ; State v. Schoenborn, 55 Mont. 517 , 179 Pac. 294 .) And, on an appeal from an award made under the Compensation Act, after review by the district court, this court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.

1929(State v. Rocky Mountain Elevator Co., 52 Mont. 487 , 158 Pac. 818 ; Dover Lumber Co. v. Whitcomb, 54 Mont. 141 , 168 Pac. 947 ; State v. Schoenborn, 55 Mont. 517 , 179 Pac. 294 .) And, on an appeal from an award made under the Compensation Act, after review by the district court, this court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.

1929(State v. Rocky Mountain Elevator Co., 52 Mont. 487 , 158 Pac. 818 ; Dover Lumber Co. v. Whitcomb, 54 Mont. 141 , 168 Pac. 947 ; State v. Schoenborn, 55 Mont. 517 , 179 Pac. 294 .) And, on an appeal from an award made under the Compensation Act, after review by the district court, this court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.

1929(State v. Rocky Mountain Elevator Co., 52 Mont. 487 , 158 Pac. 818 ; Dover Lumber Co. v. Whitcomb, 54 Mont. 141 , 168 Pac. 947 ; State v. Schoenborn, 55 Mont. 517 , 179 Pac. 294 .) And, on an appeal from an award made under the Compensation Act, after review by the district court, this court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.

1929(State v. Rocky Mountain Elevator Co., 52 Mont. 487 , 158 Pac. 818 ; Dover Lumber Co. v. Whitcomb, 54 Mont. 141 , 168 Pac. 947 ; State v. Schoenborn, 55 Mont. 517 , 179 Pac. 294 .) And, on an appeal from an award made under the Compensation Act, after review by the district court, this court will not reverse the judgment, unless the evidence clearly preponderates against it.