implied findings doctrine in Montana

2024The State counters that, “[t]o the extent that the district 9 court did not specifically and explicitly find that Smith would be unresponsive to further efforts, the finding was implied and consistent with the record.” We agree with the State that, while the District Court did not explicitly find Smith would be unresponsive to further efforts under the MIIG, such a finding is implied and consistent with the record in this case. ¶17 This Court “adheres to the doctrine of implied findings which states that where a court’s findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but nec

2024The State counters that, “[t]o the extent that the district 9 court did not specifically and explicitly find that Smith would be unresponsive to further efforts, the finding was implied and consistent with the record.” We agree with the State that, while the District Court did not explicitly find Smith would be unresponsive to further efforts under the MIIG, such a finding is implied and consistent with the record in this case. ¶17 This Court “adheres to the doctrine of implied findings which states that where a court’s findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but nec

2018In re M.R.G. , ¶ 17. ¶25 Under the doctrine of implied findings, "otherwise facially insufficient findings of fact may be minimally sufficient if, within the scope of the express findings made, more specific findings of fact 'necessary to the determination' can be clearly inferred from other express findings or the evidentiary record." In re D.L.B. , 2017 MT 106 , ¶ 13, 387 Mont. 323 , 394 P.3d 169 (quoting In re S.G.R. , 2016 MT 70 , ¶¶ 20-24, 383 Mont. 74 , 368 P.3d 1180 ); see also In re J.B., Jr. , 2016 MT 68 , ¶ 25, 383 Mont. 48 , 368 P.3d 715 .

2018In re M.R.G. , ¶ 17. ¶25 Under the doctrine of implied findings, "otherwise facially insufficient findings of fact may be minimally sufficient if, within the scope of the express findings made, more specific findings of fact 'necessary to the determination' can be clearly inferred from other express findings or the evidentiary record." In re D.L.B. , 2017 MT 106 , ¶ 13, 387 Mont. 323 , 394 P.3d 169 (quoting In re S.G.R. , 2016 MT 70 , ¶¶ 20-24, 383 Mont. 74 , 368 P.3d 1180 ); see also In re J.B., Jr. , 2016 MT 68 , ¶ 25, 383 Mont. 48 , 368 P.3d 715 .

2008The doctrine of implied findings “provides that where ‘findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the [determination], are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.’ ” Caplis v. Caplis, 2004 MT 145, ¶ 32 , 321 Mont. 450, ¶ 32 , 91 P.3d 1282, ¶ 32 (quoting State v. Wooster, 2001 MT 4, ¶ 18 , 304 Mont. 56, ¶ 18 , 16 P.3d 409, ¶ 18 ).

2008The doctrine of implied findings “provides that where ‘findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the [determination], are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.’ ” Caplis v. Caplis, 2004 MT 145, ¶ 32 , 321 Mont. 450, ¶ 32 , 91 P.3d 1282, ¶ 32 (quoting State v. Wooster, 2001 MT 4, ¶ 18 , 304 Mont. 56, ¶ 18 , 16 P.3d 409, ¶ 18 ).

2016The doctrine of implied findings “holds that where ‘findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the determination, are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.’ ” S.M., ¶ 28 (quoting In re Mental Health of S. C., 2000 MT 370, ¶ 15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 ).

2016The doctrine of implied findings “holds that where ‘findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the determination, are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.’ ” S.M., ¶ 28 (quoting In re Mental Health of S. C., 2000 MT 370, ¶ 15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 ).

2017See also Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon, 218 Mont. 380, 384 , 708 P.2d 573, 576 (1985); Ballenger v. Tillman, 133 Mont. 369, 378 , 324 P.2d 1045, 1050 (1958); Crisse v. State Highway Commission, 147 Mont. 374, 381 , 413 P.2d 308, 310 , (1966). ¶30 As the foregoing abundantly makes clear, the doctrine of implied findings is a rule of civil procedure that allows judgment to be entered, even though the trial court has made only partial findings, because the judgment made by the trial court can only be maintained with a favorable finding on the particular issue.

2017See also Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon, 218 Mont. 380, 384 , 708 P.2d 573, 576 (1985); Ballenger v. Tillman, 133 Mont. 369, 378 , 324 P.2d 1045, 1050 (1958); Crisse v. State Highway Commission, 147 Mont. 374, 381 , 413 P.2d 308, 310 , (1966). ¶30 As the foregoing abundantly makes clear, the doctrine of implied findings is a rule of civil procedure that allows judgment to be entered, even though the trial court has made only partial findings, because the judgment made by the trial court can only be maintained with a favorable finding on the particular issue.

2017P. 52, we reaffirmed these principles in Poulsen v. Treasure State Indus., 192 Mont. 69, 77 , 626 P.2d 822, 827 (1981), explaining that “the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and this Court will draw every legitimate inference to support that presumption.” We held that this Court adheres to the “doctrine of implied findings which states that where a court’s findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the judgment, are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.” Poulsen, 192 Mont. at 77 , 626 P.2d at 827 .

2017P. 52, we reaffirmed these principles in Poulsen v. Treasure State Indus., 192 Mont. 69, 77 , 626 P.2d 822, 827 (1981), explaining that “the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and this Court will draw every legitimate inference to support that presumption.” We held that this Court adheres to the “doctrine of implied findings which states that where a court’s findings are general in terms, any findings not specifically made, but necessary to the judgment, are deemed to have been implied, if supported by the evidence.” Poulsen, 192 Mont. at 77 , 626 P.2d at 827 .

2017See also Gallagher v. Cornelius, 23 Mont. 27, 28 , 57 P. 447, 448 (1899) (“The defendants complain of the failure of the referee to make express findings on every issue ... [b]ut it does not appear the defendants requested findings in writing, as is required by Section 1114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”). ¶27 This Court applied the doctrine of implied findings in Yellowstone Nat’l Bk. v. Gagnon, 25 Mont. 268, 271 , 64 P. 664, 665 (1901), to conclude that, in the absence of the plaintiff either requesting findings or filing exceptions to defective findings, the “presumption obtains that the

2017See also Gallagher v. Cornelius, 23 Mont. 27, 28 , 57 P. 447, 448 (1899) (“The defendants complain of the failure of the referee to make express findings on every issue ... [b]ut it does not appear the defendants requested findings in writing, as is required by Section 1114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”). ¶27 This Court applied the doctrine of implied findings in Yellowstone Nat’l Bk. v. Gagnon, 25 Mont. 268, 271 , 64 P. 664, 665 (1901), to conclude that, in the absence of the plaintiff either requesting findings or filing exceptions to defective findings, the “presumption obtains that the

2001See Berry v. Romain (1981), 194 Mont. 400, 407 , 632 P.2d 1127, 1132 .

2001See Berry v. Romain (1981), 194 Mont. 400, 407 , 632 P.2d 1127, 1132 .

2017Compare S.G.R., ¶¶ 16-24 (required § 53-21-127(8)(a) finding on §§ 53-21-126(1) and -128(1)(d) requirements for necessity of continued treatment supported by other findings referencing specific evidence clearly showing need for commitment), and In re Mental Health of S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶¶ 12-15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 (required § 53-21-127(8)(h) finding on need for involuntary medication “abundantly clear from” other “detailed findings”), with In re L.L.A., 2011 MT 285, ¶¶ 13-22 , 362 Mont. 464 , 267 P.3d 1 (findings couched in terms of statutory language without specific reference to th

2017Compare S.G.R., ¶¶ 16-24 (required § 53-21-127(8)(a) finding on §§ 53-21-126(1) and -128(1)(d) requirements for necessity of continued treatment supported by other findings referencing specific evidence clearly showing need for commitment), and In re Mental Health of S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶¶ 12-15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 (required § 53-21-127(8)(h) finding on need for involuntary medication “abundantly clear from” other “detailed findings”), with In re L.L.A., 2011 MT 285, ¶¶ 13-22 , 362 Mont. 464 , 267 P.3d 1 (findings couched in terms of statutory language without specific reference to th

2017It is my opinion, or perhaps optimism, that had we carefully considered the doctrine in conjunction with the well-recognized principle that there is to be strict compliance with the involuntary commitment statutes, In re Mental Health of S.J., 231 Mont. 353, 355 , 753 P.2d 319, 320 (1988), our decision in S.G.R. and D.L.B.

2017It is my opinion, or perhaps optimism, that had we carefully considered the doctrine in conjunction with the well-recognized principle that there is to be strict compliance with the involuntary commitment statutes, In re Mental Health of S.J., 231 Mont. 353, 355 , 753 P.2d 319, 320 (1988), our decision in S.G.R. and D.L.B.

2017Compare S.G.R., ¶¶ 16-24 (required § 53-21-127(8)(a) finding on §§ 53-21-126(1) and -128(1)(d) requirements for necessity of continued treatment supported by other findings referencing specific evidence clearly showing need for commitment), and In re Mental Health of S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶¶ 12-15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 (required § 53-21-127(8)(h) finding on need for involuntary medication “abundantly clear from” other “detailed findings”), with In re L.L.A., 2011 MT 285, ¶¶ 13-22 , 362 Mont. 464 , 267 P.3d 1 (findings couched in terms of statutory language without specific reference to th

2017Compare S.G.R., ¶¶ 16-24 (required § 53-21-127(8)(a) finding on §§ 53-21-126(1) and -128(1)(d) requirements for necessity of continued treatment supported by other findings referencing specific evidence clearly showing need for commitment), and In re Mental Health of S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶¶ 12-15 , 303 Mont. 444 , 15 P.3d 861 (required § 53-21-127(8)(h) finding on need for involuntary medication “abundantly clear from” other “detailed findings”), with In re L.L.A., 2011 MT 285, ¶¶ 13-22 , 362 Mont. 464 , 267 P.3d 1 (findings couched in terms of statutory language without specific reference to th

2017Where the court “expressly [finds] every fact necessary to support the judgment ..., there is no room for the application of the doctrine of implied findings.” Crosby, 56 Mont. at 193 , 182 P. at 125 . 2 Similarly, in Eskestrand v. Wunder, 94 Mont. 57, 64 , 20 P.2d 622, 624 (1933), this Court determined that a specific finding made by the trial court was “one of fact” and that “any further finding on the subject, necessary, will be implied ...,” thus acknowledging the doctrine was limited to implied findings of fact, as compared to implied conclusions of law or, as relevant here, implying that

2017Where the court “expressly [finds] every fact necessary to support the judgment ..., there is no room for the application of the doctrine of implied findings.” Crosby, 56 Mont. at 193 , 182 P. at 125 . 2 Similarly, in Eskestrand v. Wunder, 94 Mont. 57, 64 , 20 P.2d 622, 624 (1933), this Court determined that a specific finding made by the trial court was “one of fact” and that “any further finding on the subject, necessary, will be implied ...,” thus acknowledging the doctrine was limited to implied findings of fact, as compared to implied conclusions of law or, as relevant here, implying that

2017See also Gallagher v. Cornelius, 23 Mont. 27, 28 , 57 P. 447, 448 (1899) (“The defendants complain of the failure of the referee to make express findings on every issue ... [b]ut it does not appear the defendants requested findings in writing, as is required by Section 1114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”). ¶27 This Court applied the doctrine of implied findings in Yellowstone Nat’l Bk. v. Gagnon, 25 Mont. 268, 271 , 64 P. 664, 665 (1901), to conclude that, in the absence of the plaintiff either requesting findings or filing exceptions to defective findings, the “presumption obtains that the

2017See also Gallagher v. Cornelius, 23 Mont. 27, 28 , 57 P. 447, 448 (1899) (“The defendants complain of the failure of the referee to make express findings on every issue ... [b]ut it does not appear the defendants requested findings in writing, as is required by Section 1114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”). ¶27 This Court applied the doctrine of implied findings in Yellowstone Nat’l Bk. v. Gagnon, 25 Mont. 268, 271 , 64 P. 664, 665 (1901), to conclude that, in the absence of the plaintiff either requesting findings or filing exceptions to defective findings, the “presumption obtains that the

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[UJnder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[U]nder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[UJnder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[U]nder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[UJnder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.

2016See In re S.M., 2014 MT 309, ¶ 28 , 377 Mont. 133 , 339 P.3d 23 (“[U]nder the doctrine of implied findings, we may consult hearing transcripts in addition to the written findings.