Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Western Tradition Partnership (WTP), Champion Painting, and Montana Shooting Sports Foundation (MSSF), sued the Montana Attorney General and the Commissioner of Political Practices, seeking a declaration that Mont. Code Ann. 13-35-227(1) violated their freedom of speech protected by the state and federal Constitutions by prohibiting political expenditures by corporations on behalf of or opposing candidates for public office. The district court declared the statute unconstitutional, granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, enjoined enforcement of the statute, and denied the motion of Champion and MSSF for an award of attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants after applying the principles enunciated in Citizens United v. F.E.C., holding that Montana has a compelling interest to impose the challenged rationally-tailored statutory restrictions. View "Western Tradition P'ship v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Campbell Farming Corporation had its shares controlled by three shareholders: Stephanie Gately controlled fifty-one percent of the shares, and H. Robert Warren and Joan Crocker controlled the remaining forty-nine percent. Stephanie awarded her son, Robert Gately, who was president of the company, a bonus after a vote by the shareholders. Warren and Crocker filed a derivative and direct action against the company and the Gatelys in federal district court seeking to void the bonus. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court accepted certification from the Tenth Circuit to answer several questions and held (1) the safe harbor provision of Mont. Code Ann. 35-1-462(2)(c) can be extended to cover a conflict-of-interest transaction involving a bonus that lacks consideration and would be void under Montana common law; (2) the business judgment rule does not apply to situations involving a director's conflict-of-interest transaction; and (3) the holding in Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins does not apply to the claim challenging Stephanie's role in the director conflict of interest transaction, but the Daniels test does apply to the claim of breach of fiduciary duties alleged by the minority shareholders against Stephanie in her capacity as majority shareholder. View "Warren v. Campbell Farming Corp." on Justia Law

Gary Martin and Lewistown Miller Construction Company entered into a written contract for the construction of a dwelling on Martin's property. When construction was completed, Martin refused to pay additional amounts above the bid price, and LMCC filed a construction lien on the property. LMCC then filed suit, seeking damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of the lien. Martin counterclaimed for declaratory relief that the lien was invalid and to quiet title, among other things. The district court (1) granted foreclosure of LMCC's construction lien and awarded damages to LMCC; and (2) denied LMCC's and Martin's request for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in ordering foreclosure of the construction lien, and the award of damages was not clearly erroneous; but (2) the district court erred in failing to award statutorily mandated attorney fees to LMCC, as it established its lien. Remanded. View "Lewistown Miller Constr. v. Martin" on Justia Law

The district court entered an order for contact between Grandmother and Granddaughter, whose parents were incarcerated. The court's order was entered over Mother's objection. Grandmother subsequently filed a petition for additional grandparent contact. After the district court held a hearing on that petition, Grandmother appealed. No written judgment or order disposing of the issues raised at the hearing appeared in the district court record, however. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after noting that the Court was left with a record that was impossible to properly review as to the three issues raised on appeal. Remanded to the district court with directions for the court to enter written findings, conclusions, and an order addressing the issues raised by Grandmother's petition and at the hearing. View "In re Vistation of Larsen" on Justia Law

Bryan LeMay was convicted of numerous offenses ranging from disorderly conduct to assault with a weapon, in three separate causes of action. The Supreme Court consolidated the causes of action into this opinion and affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied LeMay's motion to dismiss on the grounds of outrageous government conduct; (2) the assistance of LeMay's counsel was reasonable considering all the circumstances; (3) the district court properly denied LeMay's motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas, as they were voluntarily entered; (4) the district court did not err when it denied LeMay's motion to suppress because the officer had sufficient facts to form a particularized suspicion of wrongdoing to initiate an investigative stop; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied LeMay's motion to dismiss for lack of state criminal jurisdiction. View "State v. LeMay" on Justia Law

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBS) and New West Health Services (collectively TPAs) administered a self-funded employee healthcare benefit plan for the State's employees. Jeannette Diaz and Leah Hoffmann-Bernhardt (Plaintiffs), who were both injured in accidents, filed suit against the state, BCBS, and New West for allegedly violating their made-whole rights by failing to conduct a made-whole analysis before exercising subrogation rights. Plaintiffs moved for class certification seeking to include in the lawsuit individuals who had their benefits reduced under the State plan, as well as individuals who had their benefits reduced under policies independently issued and administered by the TPAs. The district court denied class certification and determined that Montana's made-whole laws did not apply to TPAs. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's finding that BCBS and New West, in their capacities as TPAs in the present case, were not subject to the made-whole laws under either the subrogation statutes or under a third-party beneficiary theory; and (2) reversed the district court denial of class certification, as Diaz and Hoffmann-Bernhardt demonstrated that the requirements of Mont. R. Civ. P. 23 were met. View "Diaz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield" on Justia Law

Late one night, a Jefferson County reserve deputy came upon a car parked in a posted "day use only" fishing access site in Madison County. The deputy made contact with the car's driver, Floyd Updegraff, and ascertained that Updegraff was intoxicated. A second deputy Jefferson County deputy responded to the scene and placed Updegraff under arrest for DUI. A jury ultimately convicted Updegraff of felony DUI and other offenses. Updegraff appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence because (1) if the deputies were acting under color of law, they had no authority to make an arrest in Madison County, or (2) the deputies were acting as private citizens, in which case they failed to comply with the private person arrest statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in order to make a warrantless arrest, an out-of-jurisdiction officer must meet the arrest standard that would apply to a private person in the same circumstances, but if this standard is met, the officer may then follow the procedures applicable to peace officers in processing the arrest; and (2) applying this approach to the circumstances in this case, Updegraff's arrest was legal. View "State v. Updegraff" on Justia Law

Jesse Kirk was convicted by a jury of burglary and criminal possession of dangerous drugs. The district court issued a pre-trial order denying Kirk's motion to sever the counts, concluding that the counts in the amended information were properly joined and that severance was not required to avoid an unfair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the burglary and drug charges were linked by a common motive and because the burglary occasioned the second charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, the counts in the amended information were properly joined; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that severance was not required to avoid an unfair trial where Kirk did not prove that, while he may have faced some prejudice as a result of the joint trial, the prejudice was so great that it prevented a fair trial. View "State v. Kirk" on Justia Law

Mother and Father's twin sons were born with physical and mental disabilities and required full-time care and supervision. Upon his divorce from Mother, Father was ordered to pay child support. Father's obligation to provide child support ceased upon the twins' graduation from high school. Mother later requested continued child support from Father once the twins turned nineteen. The district court concluded that Mont. Code Ann. 40-6-214 did not allow an order imposing such support but that the statute provided the court with authority to order a parent to support an adult child who is poor and unable to maintain himself if the parent does not do so. Mother subsequently filed a second petition, and the district court found it had the authority to order Father to support the twins based on information he was not providing for them to the extent of his ability. The Supreme Court consolidated the two proceedings on appeal and affirmed, holding that the district court had the statutory authority to order Father to support the twins and that section 40-6-214 imposed a duty on Father to support the twins "to the extent of his ability." View "In re M.A.S." on Justia Law

The Fronks (Fronks) purchased two pieces of property from the Collinses (Collins), and the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby Collins would acquire horses and Collins would be entitled to keep the first foal from each mare as payment for their services. Fronks later transferred $215,000 to Collins for the acquisition of the horses. Fronks later deeded the properties back to Collins with the understanding that Collins would reconvey the land back to Fronks within five years. The parties subsequently signed an agreement setting forth each party's obligations. When Collins did not comply with the agreement, Fronks brought an action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation seeking, inter alia, to enforce the agreement and recover damages, obtain ownership of the real property, and recover attorney fees. The district court determined that the agreement was a valid, enforceable contract and granted summary judgment to Fronks. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was a valid contract and the agreement did not suffer from a lack of consent by virtue of duress or menace. View "Fronk v. Collins" on Justia Law