BELL GENERATIONS TRUST V. FLATHEAD BANK CASE BRIEFS, from previous page
critical stage of the trial. Short Answer: (1) Yes, (2) yes, and (3) this issue could have been raised on direct appeal and will not be considered in a petition for postconviction relief. Affirmed.
PENNINGTON V. FLAHERTY Keywords: 5-0 panel, Admissibility of evidence, Affirmed, Implied property restrictions, Summary judgment Pennington v. Flaherty, 2013 MT 160 (June 18, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)
Keywords: 6-1 panel, Affirmed, Easement, Foreclosure, Summary judgment Bell Generations Trust v. Flathead Bank, 2013 MT 152 (June 5, 2013) (6-1) (Cotter, J., for the majority; Wheat, J., dissenting) Issue: Whether the district court properly determined that Bell’s easement rights were subordinate to Flathead Bank’s interests in the property, and were properly foreclosed upon and extinguished by the bank trhough a trustee’s sale. Short Answer: Yes. Affirmed.
Issue: Whether the district court properly held that the subROLAND V. DAVIS division plat and recorded restrictions were the only restrictions Keywords: 5-0 panel, Affirmed, Ditch easement, on the use of Pennington’s property. Short Answer: Yes. Roland v. Davis, 2013 MT 148 (June 4, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, Affirmed. J.)
LECOUNT V. DAVIS Keywords: 5-0 panel, Child support lien, Reversed LeCount v. Davis, 2013 MT 157 (June 18, 2013) (5-0) (Baker, J.) Issue: Whether the district court correctly held that LeCount could foreclose on a child support lien created by the Child Support Enforcement Division. Short Answer: No. Reversed
Issue: Whether the district court properly determined that Roland had no ditch easement across property owned by Davis. Short Answer: Yes. Affirmed. CASE BRIEFS, next page
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY PRESS
CARTWRIGHT V. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC. Keywords: 5-0 panel, Affirmed, Employee handbook, Expert witness admissibility, Good cause to terminate, Jury verdict, Wrongful discharge
Ruling for individual liberty
Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc., 2013 MT 158 (June 18, 2013) (5-0) (McKinnon, J.)
TREASURE STATE JUSTICE
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
STATE V. STEIGELMAN
Judge George M. Bourquin, Defender of the Rule of Law
Arnon Gutfeld
Foreword by Gordon Morris Bakken $29.95 paper | $45.00s cloth | Also available in e-book
Keywords: 5-0 panel, Affirmed, Concurrence, Speedy trial State v. Steigelman, 2013 MT 153 (June 6, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.; Baker, J., concurring) Issue: Whether the state violated Steigelman’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Short Answer: No. Affirmed www.montanabar.org
Order from www.ttupress.org to receive a 30% discount. Enter code TTUPTSJ13 at checkout. Offer expires January 31, 2014. Page 25