Questions of Law Reviewed De Novo

The Supreme Court reviews a district  court's conclusions of law de novo to  determine whether the court's interpretation and application of the law are correct.  State  v. Howard, 2008 MT 173, ¶ 8,  343 Mont. 378, 184 P.3d 344 abrogated on  other grounds by State v. Stops,  2013 MT 131, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811.  The Supreme Court's review of questions of law is plenary; the Court  reviews the decision to determine whether the lower court's conclusion of law  is correct.  State  v. Brown, 1999 MT 133,  ¶ 15, 294 Mont. 509, 982 P.2d 468.   The Court has used the terms de  novo and "plenary" synonymously.  See Johnson  v. Costco Wholesale,  2007 MT 43, ¶ 19, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727.

On questions  of law, the parties are entitled to full review by the appellate court without  special deference to the views of the trial court.  Johnson  v. Costco Wholesale,  2007 MT 43, ¶ 18, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727 (citing 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 5236,  238 (2d ed., West Supp. 2006)).  Accord State  v. Couture, 2010 MT 201,  ¶ 47 n. 2, 357 Mont. 398, 240 P.3d 987; State  v. Zimmerman, 2014 MT  173, ¶ 11, 375 Mont. 374, 328 P.3d 1132.

  
• Summary judgment.  Siebken  v. Voderberg, 2012 MT 291, ¶ 16,  367 Mont. 344, 291 P.3d 572.
  
• Judgment as a matter of law: Since the  assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of the law to  that assessment cannot involve discretion—that is, since no deference is given  to the trial court—the question is one of law to which the de novo or plenary  standard of review applies.  Johnson  v. Costco Wholesale,  2007 MT 43, ¶ 19, 336 Mont. 105, 152 P.3d 727.
  
• Statutory interpretation.  LHC,  Inc. v. Alvarez,  2007 MT 123, ¶ 13, 337 Mont. 294, 160 P.3d 502; State  v. Gallagher, 2005 MT 336, ¶ 16,  330 Mont. 65, 125 P.3d 1141 (question of whether district court correctly  designated defendant as a persistent felony offender was a question of  statutory interpretation, reviewable de novo).
  
• Denial of motion to dismiss in a  criminal case.  State  v. LeMay, 2011 MT 323, ¶ 27,  363 Mont. 172, 266 P.3d 1278.
  
• Whether a party has been afforded his or her right to a trial de novo.  McDunn  v. Arnold, 2013 MT 138, ¶ 10,  370 Mont. 270, 303 P.3d 1279.
  
• Construction and interpretation of a contract.  Cole  v. Valley Ice Garden, L.L.C.,  2005 MT 115, ¶ 24, 327 Mont. 99, 113 P.3d 275.
  
• Whether contract (plea agreement) was  breached.  State  v. Shepard, 2010 MT 20, ¶ 8,  355 Mont. 114, 225 P.3d 1217.
  
• Sufficiency of the evidence.  Giambra  v. Kelsey, 2007 MT 158, ¶ 29,  338 Mont. 19, 162 P.3d 134.
  
• Whether district court's action  conforms to statutory requirements.  Jacobsen  v. Thomas, 2006 MT 212, ¶ 13,  333 Mont. 323, 142 P.3d 859.
  
• District court's decision to dismiss a  claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  State  v. Boucher, 2002 MT 114, ¶ 10,  309 Mont. 514, 48 P.3d 21.
  
• Whether a party has waived the right to  trial by jury.  Balyeat  Law, P.C. v. Harrison,  1999 MT 144, ¶ 18, 295 Mont. 13, 983 P.2d 902.
  
• Constitutional law questions.  State  v. Racz, 2007 MT 244, ¶ 13,  339 Mont. 218, 168 P.3d 685.
  
• Discretionary rulings based on legal  conclusions.  Jacobsen  v. Allstate Ins. Co.,  2009 MT 248, ¶ 17, 351 Mont. 464, 215 P.3d 649.
  
• District Court's order granting a  motion to compel arbitration.  Iwen  v. US. West Direct,  1999 MT 63, ¶ 17, 293 Mont. 512, 977 P.2d 989.
  
• District Court's determination as to  whether a party is entitled to postjudgment interest.  In  re Marriage of Debuff,  2002 MT 159, ¶ 15, 310 Mont. 382, 50 P.3d 1070.
  
• District Court's finding of actual  innocence.  State  v. Beach, 2013 MT 130, ¶  8, 370 Mont. 163, 302 P.3d 47.