25-11-102, MCA


Cornelius v. Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance [08/07/12] 2012 MTWCC 29 Where Respondent moved for a new trial but did not set forth any specific allegations of abuse of discretion, irregularities, accident, or surprise, and where its “newly discovered evidence” relates to events which occurred months after trial concluded, Respondent has not set forth grounds upon which the Court will grant a new trial under § 25-11-102, MCA.

Thayer v. UEF [01/27/95] 1995 MTWCC 7 Under ARM 24.5.344, any party may “petition for a new trial or request amendment to the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law within 20 days after the order or judgment is served.” The grounds for granting a new trial are enumerated in section 25-11-102, MCA, and include irregularity in the earlier proceeding preventing a fair trial and accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Smith’s claim of surprise by admission of evidence concerning the scope of control he exercised over a worker was unconvincing. The individuals involved were all listed as witnesses. Evidence of scope of control was relevant to employment status and contemplated by the issues stated in the pretrial order.