Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Martin v. BNSF Railway Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 2015No. DA 14-0100Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice McKINNON

¶36 I disagree with the Court’s resolution of Issues Two and Three. I agree with the Court’s resolution of Issue One, but nevertheless find parts of the Court’s analysis troubling. Preliminarily, however, proper resolution of Issues Two and Three turns on adherence to the standard of review. A district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not whether this Court would have reached the same decision, but whether the district court “acted arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Williams v. Board of County CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Mickelson v. Montana Rail Link, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. Donald P. RogersMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Colstrip Energy Ltd. Partnership v. Northwestern Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API