Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several parties in Broadwater County, Montana, hold water rights to Beaver Creek based on a 1906 decree. In 1973, a major owner of these rights, Olive McMaster, transferred portions of her interest to others, including the predecessors of CX Ranch, Baum, and Riis. That conveyance imposed specific conditions for water distribution in times of shortage. Years later, disputes arose over changes to the period of use for some of these water rights and whether historical restrictions still governed distribution. In 2018, the parties reached a stipulation that added remarks about the 1973 restrictions to the official records for certain water rights. These remarks were incorporated into a 2018 Water Court order and, subsequently, into a 2022 Preliminary Decree for Basin 41I.During the 2024 irrigation season, the court-appointed Water Commissioner reduced water allocations pro rata among all rights holders due to low water levels and altered the method of delivery to facilitate Riis’ usage downstream. The Hoeffners, who own Pole Creek Ranch and Staubach Creek Ranch, objected to this administration, arguing that their rights were not subject to the 1973 restrictions and that the Water Commissioner’s practices were inconsistent with the applicable decree. The District Court denied their complaint, finding that only parties to the 1973 conveyance could enforce its terms, that the Hoeffners lacked standing, and that pro rata reduction and the delivery method used were permissible.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court’s decision. It held that the Water Commissioner was required to administer water rights in accordance with the 2022 Preliminary Decree for Basin 41I, which incorporated the 2018 Water Court order and its adjudicated terms, including the distribution remarks. The District Court erred by not first determining whether the Water Commissioner’s practices conformed with the decree. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with a decree-first analysis. View "In re Petition for Water Commissioner" on Justia Law

A Montana public housing authority employed an executive director for many years, during which she received positive performance evaluations. In 2022, a tenant grievance triggered an independent investigation into her conduct, but the investigation did not substantiate any policy violations. Shortly afterward, the executive director resigned, citing lack of support from the board. She was briefly rehired on a contract basis until an interim director took over in early 2023. Later that year, a local newspaper published an article quoting the interim director as criticizing the previous administration’s actions as unethical and damaging to the housing authority, statements that were widely republished. A board member admitted at trial that these statements about the former executive director were at least partially untrue. Despite requests for a retraction, the housing authority declined.The former executive director sued for defamation in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. The housing authority counterclaimed, alleging negligent performance and inadequate notice of resignation, but the court granted summary judgment against the counterclaim and denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, finding the counterclaim was not frivolous. At trial, the housing authority objected to the admission of the newspaper article on hearsay grounds, but the court overruled the objection, and a jury awarded significant damages to the plaintiff. The housing authority’s post-trial motions for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to apply a statutory damages cap were denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the housing authority had, through the pretrial order and its litigation conduct, waived its hearsay objection to the article. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, denial of post-trial motions, and denial of attorney fees, ruling that the counterclaim was not made in bad faith. The judgment was affirmed. View "Collins v. Whitefish Housing Authority" on Justia Law

A police officer in Kalispell, Montana, conducted a traffic stop after observing traffic violations. While the officer was engaged with the driver, the defendant, Sean Doman, stopped on a nearby public sidewalk and began recording the police interaction with his phone. The officer, concerned for safety, called for backup. When the backup officer arrived, he repeatedly asked Doman to move further away from the scene, stating that filming was allowed but Doman’s proximity and engagement were distracting. Doman refused to comply with the officer’s orders to reposition, insisting on his right to film from his chosen spot. After several warnings, Doman was arrested for obstructing a peace officer.The case was first tried in the Kalispell Municipal Court, where a jury found Doman guilty of obstructing a peace officer under Montana law. At trial, the jury was instructed that citizens have a First Amendment right to film police, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, but also that it is not a defense if the officer was acting illegally, as long as the officer acted under official authority. Doman did not raise constitutional objections to the statute during trial. On appeal to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Doman challenged the constitutionality of the obstruction statute as applied to his conduct. The District Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Doman failed to preserve his constitutional arguments for appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction because a rational juror could find that Doman knowingly impeded the officers’ duties by refusing to comply with reasonable orders during a traffic stop. The court declined to address Doman’s constitutional claims, finding them unpreserved and not warranting plain-error review. The Supreme Court affirmed Doman’s conviction. View "City of Kalispell v. Doman" on Justia Law

A father and mother came to the attention of child protective authorities in Montana due to ongoing methamphetamine use, domestic violence, and criminal behavior. In 2019, the Department of Public Health and Human Services removed their two young children from a home where multiple adults were abusing drugs. Both children were eligible for tribal enrollment and thus protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Despite efforts, no suitable ICWA-compliant placement was found, so the children remained in licensed foster care. The father was frequently incarcerated or otherwise unavailable, and both parents struggled to comply with treatment plans designed to facilitate reunification. Over the course of more than five years, the father participated intermittently in services but repeatedly relapsed, became homeless, and was arrested for new criminal offenses.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, adjudicated the children as youths in need of care, granted temporary legal custody to the Department, and repeatedly extended custody while reviewing the parents’ compliance with treatment plans. After failed attempts at reunification and kinship placement, and after considering the possibility of guardianship, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights (she did not appeal). The Department then petitioned to terminate the father’s rights, presenting evidence of the father's noncompliance and ongoing instability. Tribal representatives were given notice and opportunities to intervene and express their preference for guardianship over termination, but did not actively participate in the final hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights. The Court held that the Department had made “active efforts” as required by ICWA, the father failed to complete his treatment plan and was unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time, and continued custody would likely result in serious harm to the children. The Court also held that the father lacked standing to assert claims based on tribal preference for guardianship, as those claims belonged to the tribes or children. View "In re S.A. and J.P." on Justia Law

Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson purchased a lot in the Ridgeview Trails Major Subdivision in Livingston, Montana, in 2012. The City of Livingston had approved the subdivision in 2005 and 2006, and a geotechnical report identifying problematic soils was created for the subdivision developers but was not provided to the Atkinsons when they purchased the lot. The Atkinsons received a building permit from the City to construct a residence, which was substantially completed in June 2013. In 2021, the Atkinsons began to observe cracking and structural problems in their home. After later discovering the existence of the geotechnical report, they sued the City in April 2024, alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation for the City’s failure to disclose known soil issues during the permitting process.The case was heard in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County. By agreement, the parties proceeded directly to cross-motions for summary judgment to address threshold legal issues before discovery. The District Court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the claims were barred by Montana’s statute of repose for construction-related claims, found in § 27-2-208, MCA. The District Court also found that the City owed no duty to the Atkinsons, that the public duty doctrine barred the claims, that the Atkinsons had disclaimed claims relating to permits and inspections, and that the geotechnical report was for the developer’s exclusive use.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Atkinsons’ claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in § 27-2-208, MCA, because their claims arose from the City’s planning and inspection activities and were filed more than ten years after substantial completion of the home. The Court also held that the statute applies to municipalities and that no statutory exception applied. View "Atkinson v. Livingston" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a theft that occurred in Great Falls, Montana. The defendant, who had been living with her cousin at the cousin’s home and then at the home of another relative, was accused of stealing property from a storage unit rented in the name of the cousin’s daughter and paid for by the cousin’s husband. Surveillance footage and gate access records showed the defendant, along with a co-defendant, accessing the storage unit multiple times and removing property. The defendant acknowledged taking some items that did not belong to her but claimed she believed she had permission to retrieve her own belongings and returned most of the items.The Eighth Judicial District Court held a jury trial where the prosecution introduced text messages between the co-defendant and the complaining witness, which discussed details of the alleged theft and the property taken. Although the defense objected to these messages as hearsay, the court admitted them. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant of felony theft of property valued between $1,500 and $5,000 but acquitted her of burglary. The defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of the text messages constituted an abuse of discretion and that the error was not harmless.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court’s error in admitting the hearsay text messages was harmless. The Court held that the error was not harmless because the messages impermissibly bolstered the prosecution’s case and undermined the defendant’s credibility, contributing to the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the State failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable possibility that the inadmissible evidence contributed to the conviction. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

A young child was removed from her mother’s care, along with her two siblings, due to concerns of neglect and abuse. After initial placement with their maternal grandmother, the grandmother asked for the children to be removed, and the subject child was subsequently placed with a licensed foster parent, J.D., where she remained. The child’s brother was later hospitalized and, upon discharge, was placed with the grandmother, while the subject child remained with J.D. Over the course of the proceedings, professional testimony described the child’s attachment disorder, trauma history, and the risks posed by placement changes. Reports also indicated the child was thriving in her current placement and that sibling reunification was not in her best interest due to safety and emotional concerns.The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, held multiple hearings regarding placement and permanency. After terminating parental rights and granting permanent legal custody to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, the court denied the grandmother’s request for placement, finding good cause to depart from statutory placement preferences based on the child’s extraordinary mental and emotional needs. The court incorporated findings from previous orders, relied on professional testimony and a report from the Court Appointed Special Advocate, and approved adoption by J.D. as the permanency plan.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving adoption as the permanency plan and denying the grandmother’s placement request. The Supreme Court held that, despite some imprecise language, the District Court applied the correct statutory standards, made sufficient findings regarding the child’s best interests, and did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order. View "In re M.L.O.-L." on Justia Law

Two individuals were found sleeping in a parked car outside a casino in Kalispell, Montana, prompting an employee to request law enforcement both conduct a welfare check and ask the occupants to leave the premises. Flathead County Sheriff’s Deputies approached the vehicle, spoke with the occupants—Christina Torres and Randy Joe Fish—and requested Fish’s identification. After Fish provided his name and date of birth, a warrant check revealed Fish had an outstanding arrest warrant. Fish was arrested, and a subsequent search uncovered less than 0.1 gram of methamphetamine in his pocket.Fish was charged with Felony Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. He moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, arguing the officers conducted a Terry stop without sufficient justification since they requested his name absent reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, thus violating his constitutional rights. The State responded that the interaction did not amount to a seizure, or alternatively, that the officers had particularized suspicion to investigate a possible trespass. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Fish’s suppression motion, concluding there was no Terry violation because the deputies acted appropriately given the circumstances and the property owner’s request.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the suppression motion. It presumed Fish was seized for constitutional analysis but found the initial police contact was justified under the community caretaker doctrine. When the welfare check was complete, the deputies had particularized suspicion to investigate trespass due to the request to remove Fish from the property. The Court held the officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution and affirmed the District Court’s denial of Fish’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Fish" on Justia Law

An armed and masked individual entered a pharmacy in Columbia Falls, Montana, and demanded Percocet 10 from three employees. The perpetrator directed the employees into a bathroom and fled after receiving the drugs. One employee, who knew Grant West personally, identified him as the robber based on his voice and limp, which matched surveillance footage. Police responded swiftly, arrested West at his residence, and found Percocet 10 in his pocket, along with shoes and a handgun resembling those seen in the surveillance video. West denied involvement, stating he had lent his vehicle to a friend and explaining his prescription history.The State charged West with robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County. Before trial, the State disclosed that its key identifying witness had a hearing impairment. West’s motion to exclude this testimony for delayed disclosure was denied by the District Court. During trial, the jury heard evidence from pharmacy employees, law enforcement, and others. West moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence after the State's case, but the motion was denied. The jury found West guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to prison.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed five issues raised on appeal: the Brady claim regarding witness hearing impairment, sufficiency of the robbery evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error. The court held that the delayed disclosure of the witness’s impairment did not undermine the verdict, that sufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction, that the prosecutor’s conduct did not prejudice West’s substantial rights, and that the ineffective assistance claims were not record-based and thus not reviewable on direct appeal. No cumulative error was found. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

A nonprofit coalition and two individuals challenged a county commission’s conditional approval for the development of a large seasonal RV park on a 21-acre lot in a rural area that had previously been designated for such use in a larger subdivision plan. The proposed site was adjacent to other commercial activity and near two lakes, but had no on-site surface water. The applicants submitted an environmental assessment (EA), which included groundwater well data and described wildlife in the area. The application process included public hearings, during which concerns were raised about groundwater impacts, wildlife, public safety, and increased recreational use.Following the submission of the application, the Lincoln County Planning Department recommended approval, and the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings, received additional agency comments, and ultimately granted conditional preliminary plat approval, requiring, among other conditions, state environmental review and approval of the water and sewer systems. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court, claiming the County’s approval was unlawful for not complying with statutory requirements for environmental review, consideration of probable impacts, and consistency with local plans. The District Court granted summary judgment for the County and intervenors, finding compliance with applicable statutes and plans.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the EA met statutory requirements, whether the County considered specific, documentable, and clearly defined impacts as required by law, and whether the subdivision was consistent with the local neighborhood plan and growth policy. The Supreme Court held that the EA satisfied statutory requirements by providing all available information; the County properly considered impacts using the required legal standard; and the County’s decision was consistent with the relevant policies and not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Thompson Chain of Lakes Stewardship Coalition v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law