Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Slate v. Bozeman Deaconess Health Services

Supreme Court of Montana

February 28, 2017

LAWRENCE SLATE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BOZEMAN DEACONESS HEALTH SERVICES, Individually and d/b/a Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Defendant and Appellee.

          Submitted on Briefs: December 21, 2016

         APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV-13-585C Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge

          For Appellant: E. Casey Magan, Russell S. Waddell, Waddell & Magan, Bozeman, Montana

          For Appellee: Cynthia L. Walker, Emma R. Peckinpaugh, Poore, Roth, & Robinson, P.C., Butte, Montana

          OPINION

          LAURIE McKINNON, JUSTICE

         ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

         ¶2 Lawrence Slate (Slate) appeals from a jury verdict finding he was not wrongfully discharged from Bozeman Deaconess Health Services (BDHS) under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA). He submits for review six issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the District Court erred by denying Slate's motion for a new trial that was premised on a lack of evidence to support the jury's verdict.
2. Whether the District Court erred by admitting an exhibit under an exception to the rule against hearsay.
3. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to call a mistrial after defense counsel impeached Slate on the basis of juror statements made during voir dire.
4.Whether the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness whose testimony before the jury differed slightly from his voir dire testimony.
5. Whether the District Court erred in refusing a new trial on the basis two jurors provided misleading information in their juror questionnaires.
6. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defense on the basis Slate's claim for emotional distress ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.