Archive | Expert witness admissibility

RSS feed for this section

McColl v. Lang

McColl v. Lang, 2016 MT 255 (Oct. 11, 2016) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Lang’s motion to exclude certain evidence, and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying McColl’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lang’s expert witness.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Lang is a licensed naturopathic physician. McColl saw Lang in 2012 and discussed a blemish on her nose that she wished to remove. A month later, McColl returned to Lang’s office where he applied black salve, an escharotic agent, to the blemish on McColl’s nose. Lang sent her home with instructions to return. A few days later, McColl returned and Lang reapplied black salve.…

Wicklund v. Sundheim

Wicklund v. Sundheim, 2016 MT 62 (March 9, 2016) (Baker, J.; McKinnon, J., dissenting) (4-1, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly admitted the testimony of an English professor interpreting the language of the warranty deed’s royalty interest reservation; (2) whether the district court erred by resolving the ambiguity in the 1953 warrant deed in favor of Sundheims; and (3) whether the district court improperly applied the doctrine of laches to deny Teisingers’ claim to the 3/5 royalty interest.

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

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in Teisingers’ favor

Facts: In 1953, Teisingers conveyed several sections of real property to Sundheims by warranty deed, and included language reserving “three-fifths (3/5ths) of Land owners [sic] oil, gas and mineral royalties and three-fifths (3/5ths) of any and all delay rentals on present and existing oil and gas leases now of record against the lands herein described,” subject to “such oil and gas leases” and any assignments of record.…

State v. Colburn

State v. Colburn, 2016 MT 41 (Feb. 23, 2016) (McGrath, C.J.; McKinnon, J., concurring) (7-0, rev’d & remanded)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in disqualifying Colburn’s expert witness from testifying at trial; and (2) whether the district court erred in its application of the Rape Shield law to exclude evidence Colburn offered at trial.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; and (2) yes.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial

Facts: The state charged Colburn with two counts of incest involving his daughter, CC, one count of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of sexual assault involving a neighbor girl, RW, all felonies. Both girls were 11 years old at the time of the offenses. RW testified at trial that Colburn touched her private parts manually and with his penis.…

McClue v. Safeco Insurance Co.

McClue v. Safeco Insurance Co., 2015 MT 222 (Aug. 4, 2015) (Baker, J.) (7-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court improperly excluded causation testimony from Dr. Sabow; and (2) whether the district court properly excluded causation testimony from Dr. Jimmeh-Fletcher.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Affirmed and reversed, and remanded for further proceedings

Facts: Carol McClue was involved in a serious accident in January 2009. In 2011, Dr. Sherry Reid and Dr. Decontee Jimmeh-Fletcher diagnosed Carol with bulbar ALS, of which Carol died in 2013.

At the time of the accident, Carol had Underinsured Motorists Coverage through Safeco. After her diagnosis in 2011, she submitted claims to Safeco for damages associated with the ALS.…

Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc.

Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc., 2013 MT 158 (June 18, 2013) (5-0) (McKinnon, J.)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in (1) denying summary judgment to Cartwright and allowing Scheels to argue good cause for terminating Cartwright’s employment; (2) failing to sanction Scheels for discovery abuse and destruction of evidence; (3) denying Cartwright’s motion to amend the pleadings; (4) allowing Scheels’ expert witness to testify about ultimate issues of fact and law; and (5) allowing witnesses to testify about rumors heard at Scheels about Cartwright.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; (4) no; and (5) 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

State v. Jay

State v. Jay, 2013 MT 79 (March 26, 2013) (5-0) (Rice, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Jay’s challenge for cause; (2) whether the district court erred in excluding Jay’s expert witness; (3) whether the district court erred in denying Jay’s request to instruct on DUI as a lesser-included offense of Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence; and (4) whether the district court erred in ordering Jay to pay restitution to the state, the victims, and the victims’ family members.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) no; and (4) yes.

Affirmed issues 1-3 and reversed issue 4