Opinion ID: 889478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶11 We review whether a district court met statutory requirements de novo because such review is a question of law. In re Mental Health of E.P.B., 2007 MT 224, ¶ 5, 339 Mont. 107, 168 P.3d 662. ¶12 We review a trial court’s findings of fact in a mental health commitment as to whether they are clearly erroneous. A district court’s findings are clearly erroneous if substantial credible evidence does not support them, if the district court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence or if a review of the record leaves this Court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Additionally, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party when determining whether substantial credible evidence supports a district court’s findings. In re Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82, ¶¶ 16-17, 342 Mont. 169, 180 P.3d 625.