Archive | Civil procedure

RSS feed for this section

McDunn v. Arnold

McDunn v. Arnold, 2013 MT 138 (May 28, 2013) (5-0) (McGrath, C.J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly allowed McDunns to amend their complaint and add a new claim; (2) whether the district court properly denied Arnold’s motion in limine to prohibit reference to the testimony and evidence presented in the justice court; and (3) whether Arnold was denied her right to a trial de novo.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed

Wheaton v. Bradford

Wheaton v. Bradford, 2013 MT 121 (May 7, 2013) (5-0) (Rice, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether Bradford’s expert was properly allowed; (2) whether Bradford’s expert failed to supplement his disclosure; (3) whether the motion for a new trial should have been granted.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no; and (3) no.

Affirmed

Wittich Law Firm, P.C. v. O’Connell

Wittich Law Firm, P.C. v. O’Connell, 2013 MT 122 (May 7, 2013) (4-1) (Wheat, J., for the majority; Baker, J. concurs; Cotter, J., dissents)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court slightly abused its discretion in denying O’Connells’ motion to vacate the default judgment, and (2) whether the law firm was properly awarded attorneys’ fees.

Short Answer: (1) No, as it was untimely under the 2009 Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) yes, as the contract allowed them.

Affirmed