Opinion ID: 882490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in denying Sourdough's motion for a stay of proceedings.

Text: We previously set forth the standard of review regarding discretionary trial court rulings as follows: Our standard of review relating to conclusions of law is not to be confused with our review of discretionary trial court rulings. This has been defined as encompassing the power of choice among several courses of action, each of which is considered permissible. See Aldisert, The Judicial Process, 1976, page 759. Such rulings are usually trial administration issues, scope of cross-examination, post-trial motions, and similar rulings. The standard of abuse of discretion will be applied to these rulings. Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 475, 803 P.2d 601, 603-604. Therefore, we confine our review to encompass only whether the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing Sourdough's petition for appeal and for denying Sourdough's motion for a stay.