Archive | Remanded for evidentiary hearing

RSS feed for this section

State v. Erickson

State v. Erickson, 2018 MT 9 (Jan. 16, 2018) (Rice. J.) (5-0, aff’d, rev’d, & remanded)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in denying Erickson’s motion to modify his criminal judgment.

Short Answer: No; however, Erickson can seek relief under § 46-18-246 and is permitted to do so on remand.

Affirmed, reversed, and remanded

Facts: Erickson and Johnson were involved in a fight in 2011, which resulted in Johnson falling, hitting his head, and sustaining a serious injury. In February 2013, a jury found Erickson guilty of criminal endangerment, and this Court affirmed in 2014.

At sentencing in 2013, the state sought restitution for Johnson’s medical care and lost wages. Erickson argued that those issues were more appropriately addressed in a civil case, which Johnson had already filed.…

Buckles v. Continental Resources, Inc.

Buckles v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2017 MT 235 (Sept. 21, 2017) (Shea, J.; McKinnon, J., dissenting) (6-1, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred by dismissing Buckles’ Complaint on the grounds that Continental Resources is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Montana.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed & remanded for an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction

Facts: On April 28, 2014, Zachary died in North Dakota of exposure to high levels of hydrocarbon vapors while manually gauging crude oil production tanks on Continental’s Columbus Federal 2-16H well site near Alexander, North Dakota. Continental oversees operation of the Columbus Federal 2-16H well site from its corporate office in Sidney, Montana.…

Zabrocki v. Teachers’ Retirement System

Zabrocki v. Teachers’ Retirement System, 2016 MT 146 (June 14, 2016) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred in affirming he decision of the Teachers retirement Board denying motions for summary judgment and remanding for an evidentiary hearing.

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

Facts: Edward Zabrocki began receiving Teachers Retirement System (TRS) benefits in 2007. In February 2012 TRS notified him that he did not qualify for those benefits and must reimburse TRS for the amounts it paid. Zabrocki requested an administrative review, and the TRS Board concurred. In January 2013 Zabrocki requested a contested case hearing with TRS.

TRS appointed a hearing examiner, who issued a scheduling order. In August 2013,before the hearing was held, Zabrocki and TRS filed summary judgment motions.…