Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Montana legislature enacted a law, HB 937, and associated administrative rules that imposed new licensure and regulatory requirements specifically on abortion clinics, which were defined as facilities providing abortion-inducing drugs or performing surgical abortions to at least five patients per year. These requirements did not apply to clinics that provided identical medications and procedures exclusively for miscarriage management. Plaintiffs, including two clinics and a nurse practitioner, challenged the law and rules, arguing that they violated the equal protection and privacy rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. They asserted that these new requirements could force them to cease providing abortion care, thereby restricting their patients’ access to such services.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, initially granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of HB 937 and the associated rules. The District Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim, that irreparable harm was likely absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that an injunction was in the public interest. The court determined that the law treated similarly situated providers—those giving identical care for either miscarriage or abortion—differently solely based on the purpose of the treatment. The court applied strict scrutiny, finding that the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest or that the law was narrowly tailored.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court held that HB 937 and the rules likely violate the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by subjecting abortion providers to unique, burdensome licensing requirements not imposed on providers of identical miscarriage care, thus likely infringing on the fundamental right to privacy. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs met all four elements required for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s order in its entirety. View "All Families v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or greater (DUI per se), first offense, in the City of Whitefish, Montana. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that recommended a fine and surcharge, but also requested the court consider his ability to pay and suspend the fine if warranted. At sentencing, the defendant, then 73 years old, testified about his limited financial means, relying solely on Social Security income. The Municipal Court, while sympathetic, imposed the statutory $600 minimum fine, finding it lacked discretion to suspend it, but waived the surcharge.The defendant appealed to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Municipal Court’s decision. On further appeal, the Montana Supreme Court, in a prior decision (City of Whitefish v. Curran, 2023 MT 118), found that the Municipal Court had the authority to consider alternatives to full payment of the fine and remanded for consideration of such alternatives. On remand, the Municipal Court held a new hearing, again reviewed the defendant’s financial circumstances, and suspended the $600 fine in its entirety, conditioned on the defendant’s completion of court-ordered alcohol education.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the applicable sentencing statutes require sentencing courts to determine a defendant’s ability to pay fines and allow courts to suspend mandatory minimum fines to the extent a defendant cannot pay. The Supreme Court found that the Municipal Court complied with these statutory requirements by considering the defendant’s ability to pay, imposing the statutory fine, and then suspending it. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order upholding the Municipal Court’s sentence and judgment. View "City of Whitefish v. Curran" on Justia Law

A group of business and industry associations challenged the Montana Attorney General’s March 6, 2026 determination that Proposed Ballot Measure No. 10 was legally sufficient to proceed in the initiative process. Ballot Measure No. 10 sought to amend state law by defining “artificial persons” and excluding “political spending power” from the rights granted to such entities. The challengers argued that the measure was facially unconstitutional because it restricted political speech, was vague, and improperly conditioned benefits on the waiver of constitutional rights.The challenge was brought directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana under its original jurisdiction. The Attorney General had performed only a procedural review, declining to address the measure’s substantive constitutionality due to a prior order by the First Judicial District Court in Ellingson v. State, which had enjoined the statutory provision that would have allowed such substantive review. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to require the Attorney General to review the measure’s constitutionality and to reverse his finding of legal sufficiency.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the Attorney General does not have authority to consider the substantive constitutionality of proposed ballot initiatives during legal sufficiency review under current law and precedent. The Court reaffirmed that pre-election constitutional challenges to initiatives are generally disfavored, as the people have a constitutional right to use the initiative process. Because Ballot Measure No. 10 had not yet qualified for the ballot, the Court declined to address the merits of the constitutional arguments, finding such review would be advisory. The Court denied and dismissed the petition, and also denied as moot motions to intervene and to file amicus briefs. View "Montana Mining Assn. v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s approval of a family transfer exemption that allowed a landowner to divide an 80-acre tract of land into eight parcels, gifting them to family members. The organization alleged that the planning department failed to provide public notice before approving the exemption, in violation of county subdivision regulations. The land division was discovered years after its approval, when one of the organization’s members was researching a neighboring tract. The organization contended that the lack of public notice denied its members an opportunity to comment on the exemption application, as required by the county’s regulations.The organization filed suit in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The county moved to dismiss, arguing that its regulations did not require public notice for exemption applications. The District Court granted the county’s motion, dismissing all claims, and specifically found that the county regulations did not mandate published notice for review of proposed subdivision exemptions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the plain language of the county’s regulations, which state that “the public shall be permitted to comment” on exemption applications, necessarily implies that public notice must be provided; otherwise, the right to comment would be meaningless. The court emphasized that although the regulations do not specify the manner of notice, adequate notice is required to effectuate public participation. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The holding was that the county’s subdivision regulations require the planning department to provide public notice of pending subdivision exemption applications to enable meaningful public comment. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

A woman was injured after slipping and falling in the parking lot of an automobile repair shop. She filed a claim with the shop’s insurance provider, which began covering some medical and wage expenses. After the insurance company’s representative informed her that liability for her claim was being accepted, the claimant ceased gathering evidence or seeking legal counsel, believing liability would not be contested. Over two years later, when settlement negotiations failed, she retained an attorney and sued both the repair shop and the insurer. After settling with the shop and dismissing it from the lawsuit, the claimant pursued multiple claims against the insurer, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, spoliation, and equitable estoppel, contending that the insurer’s communications led her to detrimentally alter her conduct regarding evidence collection.The Fourth Judicial District Court initially indicated from the bench that the insurer was estopped from denying liability, but ultimately denied the claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the insurer on all claims. The District Court concluded that under Montana law as it existed before a 2023 statutory amendment, a third-party claimant could only bring statutory or common law bad faith claims against an insurer for mishandling a claim, and that the claimant had not sufficiently pled or could not prove the elements of her other asserted causes of action.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that, under the pre-2023 version of Montana law, third-party claimants are not restricted to statutory or common law bad faith claims and may assert other causes of action such as breach of contract or torts based on how an insurer handled a claim. The Court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer on promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and insufficiently pled claims, but reversed summary judgment on spoliation and equitable estoppel, remanding those claims for further proceedings. View "D'Hooge v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After the death of Sean Thomas in March 2022, his widow, Jaimie, was named as the sole heir and personal representative of his estate pursuant to his will. She commenced informal probate proceedings in the District Court of Butte-Silver Bow County and began administering the estate. Over time, disputes arose concerning the management of family business assets and the distribution of estate funds, particularly regarding allegations that Jaimie was using estate assets for non-estate purposes, including her personal expenses and legal defense in ongoing litigation about business ownership and obligations.In February 2023, Paul Thomas, Sean’s father, along with related business entities, initiated a separate civil action in the same District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the ownership of a family business and asserting substantial creditor claims against Sean’s estate. Paul later moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the probate proceeding, alleging that Jaimie’s actions as personal representative were rapidly depleting the estate’s assets to the detriment of creditors. The District Court granted a temporary restraining order, followed by an order requiring Jaimie to obtain court approval before making any estate distributions, and declined to require a bond.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court had jurisdiction to restrain Jaimie’s conduct, whether it abused its discretion in doing so, and whether it was required to impose a bond. The Supreme Court held that the District Court had jurisdiction under Montana’s probate statutes, specifically § 72-3-617, MCA, to restrain the personal representative’s conduct even in informal probate. The Court further determined that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the restraint and that a bond was not required under the applicable probate provisions. The decision of the District Court was affirmed. View "In re Estate of Sean Thomas" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was released from custody on the express condition that he appear at a scheduled adjudicatory hearing related to an unrelated felony. He failed to appear at the specified time and place, leading the State to charge him with the felony offense of Bail Jumping under Montana law. The defendant was arrested about ten weeks after missing the hearing. He pled not guilty and subsequently moved to dismiss the charge, arguing both that the statute was unconstitutionally vague—particularly regarding the requirement that his failure to appear be “without lawful excuse”—and that the State had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish probable cause, since it did not affirmatively show he lacked a lawful excuse.The Twentieth Judicial District Court of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant then entered a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He admitted to the facts constituting the offense, including that he did not have a lawful excuse for missing the hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether Montana’s bail-jumping statute is unconstitutionally vague and whether the State must allege facts negating the existence of a lawful excuse to establish probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the statute provides fair notice and sufficient guidelines to defendants and law enforcement, and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant’s conduct. The Court also held that the State is not required to allege or prove the absence of a lawful excuse in its charging documents; rather, the existence of a lawful excuse is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the initial burden of production. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "State v. Trombley" on Justia Law

YC Properties purchased a ranch in Montana in 2020, acquiring a senior water right on Sawtooth Creek. Plaintiffs own junior, upstream water rights. A dispute arose over water usage, leading YC to petition for a water commissioner and, after alleging it was not receiving its full water allocation, to file suit against the plaintiffs. YC sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctions to prevent the plaintiffs from diverting water until its senior right was satisfied. The District Court granted a TRO but later dissolved it and dismissed all of YC’s claims after the irrigation season ended and found YC lacked standing on one claim.Following dismissal of the underlying water rights action, the plaintiffs sued YC for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. YC moved to dismiss the new complaint, referencing facts and documents from the prior case and analyzing the summary judgment standard. The District Court notified the parties it would treat YC’s motion as one for summary judgment and, after additional briefing, granted summary judgment for YC and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in converting YC’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that the District Court abused its discretion by converting the motion prematurely, as the only dispute was whether the complaint stated a claim and there was no need to consider materials outside the pleadings. The Supreme Court further found the plaintiffs’ complaint sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roaring Lion v. YC Properties" on Justia Law

The defendant was originally arrested for felony DUI in 2019 and sentenced to two years in the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections, followed by four years of suspended time, with credit for time served. After completing a residential treatment program, the remainder of his custodial sentence was to be served on probation, with the four-year suspended period to follow. The defendant later violated probationary terms, leading to a first revocation, where the district court imposed a suspended sentence except for placement into a treatment program and credited time served.Following additional probation violations, a second revocation proceeding occurred. After a hearing, the Fifth Judicial District Court found further violations and imposed a new disposition of five years, three months to the Department of Corrections, with credit for 505 days previously served. This resulted in a net DOC sentence of 1,410 days. Both the defendant and the State asserted that the district court improperly included the probationary portion of the original custodial sentence as part of the suspended time available for revocation, contrary to Montana law.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the district court erred by revoking and converting the remaining probationary period from the custodial portion of the sentence into a DOC commitment. The court determined that, under Montana statutes, only the suspended portion of a sentence may be revoked upon a petition, and the district court’s authority did not extend to the probationary period remaining on the custodial portion. The court reversed the disposition in part and remanded for correction, instructing the district court to revoke only the 1,204 days of remaining suspended time, and clarified that credit for time served must be properly applied as required by law. View "State v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in Oregon in 2001 of attempted unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and sexual abuse in the second degree. After completing his sentence, including probation, in 2014, he moved to Montana in 2016 and registered as a sexual offender as required by law. In 2023, the Montana Department of Justice attempted to verify his address, but the verification was returned undeliverable. The defendant left a voicemail reporting a new address but did not update his registration in person, as required by the current statute.The State of Montana charged the defendant in 2024 with failure to register as a sexual offender, expressly citing the 2023 version of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) in its charging documents. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that retroactive application of the 2023 SVORA to his pre-2007 conviction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Montana Constitution. The Second Judicial District Court agreed and dismissed the charge, concluding that applying the 2023 SVORA retroactively was unconstitutional.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the State charged the defendant under the 2023 SVORA—and this Court has previously held that the post-2007 version of SVORA is punitive and cannot be applied retroactively to convictions predating its enactment—the prosecution could not stand. The Court emphasized that the State could not rely on older versions of SVORA not cited in the charging documents and did not address arguments regarding restoration of rights, limiting its decision to the ex post facto violation. The order of dismissal was affirmed. View "State v. Pratt" on Justia Law