Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thomas Steiger and Hope VanDelden have two minor children, G.L.M.S. and T.L.S. Thomas filed a Petition for Establishment of a Permanent Parenting Plan in October 2016, which was granted in May 2017 after Hope did not respond or attend the hearing. The plan allowed the children to reside primarily with Thomas and have contact with Hope on alternating weekends, holidays, and up to 14 days of vacation each year. Hope filed a motion to amend the parenting plan in October 2017, claiming Thomas had reduced her parenting time. Thomas’s mother and stepfather also petitioned to intervene, asserting their grandparenting time had been decreased.In October 2023, Hope filed a motion to proceed with mediation to address the parenting plan. After unsuccessful mediation, she filed another motion to amend the plan in January 2024, claiming Thomas did not allow the children to spend additional time with her. Thomas opposed the motion, asserting there was no change in circumstances to warrant an amendment. The District Court set an in-chambers interview with the oldest child, G.L.M.S., but did not hold an evidentiary hearing before granting Hope’s motion to amend the parenting plan in July 2024.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court erred by not holding a hearing on the motion to amend the parenting plan, as required by Montana law unless the motion is denied for lack of adequate cause. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded the case for a hearing to determine if the statutory criteria for amending the parenting plan were met and to amend the plan in the best interests of the children. View "In Re G.L.M.S. and T.L.S." on Justia Law

Ronald L. Golas was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense), operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended, and failure to carry proof of insurance. These charges stemmed from a one-vehicle crash where Golas was found with an open can of beer and a high alcohol concentration. He had prior DUI convictions and a suspended license. Golas pleaded not guilty and was released on bail with conditions. However, he failed to appear at pretrial conferences and had several positive alcohol tests, leading to a motion to revoke his release and the issuance of a bench warrant.The trial date was rescheduled multiple times due to various issues, including Golas's failure to resolve the outstanding warrant. Eventually, Golas was taken into custody, and a new trial date was set. He filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which was denied. Golas later requested a change-of-plea hearing and entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the felony DUI charge in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges. He was sentenced to 24 months in the Department of Corrections and a consecutive 5-year suspended term in the Montana State Prison.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Golas waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial by not specifically reserving this right in his plea agreement. The court found that Golas's plea was voluntary and intelligent, and there were no jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "State v. Golas" on Justia Law

David Damon pleaded guilty to felony incest and was sentenced to fifty years in prison with ten years suspended. His parole eligibility was contingent upon completing Phases I and II of the prison's sex offender treatment program. After ten years without being enrolled in Phase II, Damon filed a motion to modify his sentence to allow participation in an external residential treatment program. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied his motion, citing a lack of authority to modify the judgment. Damon appealed.The Cascade County District Court initially sentenced Damon in February 2014 after he pleaded guilty to one count of felony incest, dismissing two other charges as part of a plea agreement. Damon was designated a Tier II sex offender and required to complete specific treatment phases before being eligible for parole. In 2017, the Montana Legislature mandated the Department of Corrections (DOC) to adopt evidence-based programs, leading to the replacement of the SABER program with the SO-ICPM program in 2023. Damon argued that the elimination of the SABER program left him unable to meet his sentence requirements and sought modification to attend a residential program.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the District Court lacked the legal authority to modify Damon's sentence, as the DOC's programming changes did not render the sentence factually erroneous. The court noted that the new SO-ICPM program provided equivalent treatment to the SABER program, allowing Damon to fulfill his sentence requirements. The court also clarified that any request for placement in a residential treatment program must be made through the DOC, not the court. Thus, the District Court's denial of Damon's motion was upheld. View "State v. Damon" on Justia Law

A Montana State Representative, William W. Mercer, requested access to certain child abuse and neglect case records from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) under a statute that allows legislators to review such records. The DPHHS provided some records but withheld others, including emails, text messages, and attorney-client privileged materials. Mercer filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the DPHHS to release the additional records.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County granted a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the DPHHS to provide the requested records, including those claimed to be attorney-client privileged, but imposed additional confidentiality protections. The DPHHS appealed, arguing that the District Court misinterpreted the statute and that the attorney-client privilege should exempt certain records from disclosure.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the plain language of the statute required the disclosure of the records to the legislator, subject to confidentiality protections. The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, as Mercer demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of equities tipped in his favor, and that the injunction was in the public interest. The court emphasized that the preliminary injunction did not resolve the ultimate merits of the case, which would be determined in further proceedings. View "Mercer v. Department of Public Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of two children, L.B. and R.B., who were removed from their parents' care in December 2021 due to homelessness, domestic violence, and the father's alcoholism. The children were placed in foster care with R.D., a caregiver selected by Child Protective Services (CPS). Despite multiple efforts by CPS to assist the family, including providing basic necessities and facilitating treatment programs for the father, he was unable to maintain sobriety or stable housing.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted emergency protective services and later adjudicated the children as youths in need of care (YINC). The court granted temporary legal custody to the Department of Public Health and Human Services. After nineteen months, the Department requested a permanency plan for state-sponsored guardianship. The District Court held a hearing and, based on testimony from various experts, ordered the children to be placed with R.D. as their legal guardian.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The father argued that the Department failed to provide sufficient active efforts to help him overcome barriers to sobriety and housing. However, the court found that the Department made extensive efforts, including providing housing assistance, treatment referrals, and facilitating family engagement meetings. The court noted that the father's lack of participation and refusal of treatment options contributed to the failure of reunification efforts.The Supreme Court held that the Department made sufficient active efforts to reunite the father with his children and that further efforts would be unproductive and not in the children's best interests. The court affirmed the District Court's decision to grant legal guardianship to R.D. View "In re Matter of R.B." on Justia Law

NorthWestern Corporation and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) appealed a District Court order vacating an air quality permit granted to NorthWestern for a natural-gas-fueled power plant near Laurel, Montana. The District Court found DEQ's analysis under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) inadequate regarding the project's lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court vacated the permit, ruling that DEQ's noise analysis was not arbitrary or capricious but failed to take a "hard look" at the facility's lighting impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. The court also found that DEQ did not comply with MEPA requirements in its environmental assessment (EA) and remanded the EA to DEQ for further analysis.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's ruling that DEQ's noise analysis was adequate but agreed that DEQ failed to properly analyze the lighting impacts. The Supreme Court also held that DEQ must analyze greenhouse gas emissions within Montana as part of its MEPA review, despite the absence of specific regulatory standards for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of Montana.However, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's vacatur of the permit, citing the need for specific findings under § 75-1-201(6)(c)(ii), MCA, before granting such equitable relief. The case was remanded to DEQ for further MEPA analysis in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, with the permit reinstated pending this additional review. View "MEIC v. DEQ" on Justia Law

Jayson O’Neill requested to examine certain documents from the Office of the Governor of Montana, specifically 2021 Agency Bill Monitoring Forms (ABMs) and related emails. The Governor’s office denied the request, citing attorney-client privilege. O’Neill argued that the documents should be produced with redactions and a detailed privilege log. The Governor’s office maintained that the documents were entirely privileged but offered to provide a privilege log and documents for in camera review if directed by a court.O’Neill filed a complaint seeking an order to produce the requested documents under Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. The Governor asserted executive and deliberative process privileges. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The First Judicial District Court partially granted O’Neill’s motion, holding that Montana law did not recognize executive or deliberative process privileges and required in camera review to determine the applicability of attorney-client privilege and privacy exceptions. The Governor’s subsequent motion for relief from judgment was deemed denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that Montana law does recognize a form of gubernatorial privilege rooted in the state’s constitutional history, allowing the Governor to receive candid advice necessary for executing constitutional duties. However, this privilege is not absolute and must be assessed through in camera review to determine if the information is essential and if its disclosure would chill future candor. The court reversed the lower court’s ruling that no form of executive privilege is recognized in Montana but affirmed the need for in camera review to evaluate the claims of privilege. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "O'Neill v. Gianforte" on Justia Law

Tintina Montana, Inc. sought to operate an underground copper mine in Meagher County, Montana, which required the removal of substantial quantities of groundwater. Tintina planned to use part of this water for mining operations and return the rest to the aquifer. Montana Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups (collectively "MTU") challenged the issuance of a water use permit by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for the mine's operations, arguing that the removal and discharge of water should be considered a beneficial use requiring a permit under the Montana Water Use Act (MWUA).The Fourteenth Judicial District Court denied MTU's petition for judicial review and affirmed DNRC's decision. The court held that DNRC correctly categorized the removal and discharge of water as neither a beneficial use nor waste, thus falling outside the permitting process of the MWUA. The court also found that DNRC's interpretation of the MWUA did not contravene the Montana Constitution.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that DNRC's longstanding interpretation of the MWUA, which categorizes mine dewatering as neither a beneficial use nor waste, was reasonable and consistent with legislative intent. The court also concluded that the MWUA's exclusion of mine dewatering from the permitting process did not render the Act unconstitutional, as the primary purpose of the MWUA is to regulate water rights, not the water resource itself. The court noted that other statutory frameworks, such as the Montana Water Quality Act and the Metal Mine Reclamation Act, provide for the regulation of water quality and environmental impacts. View "Trout Unlimited v. DNRC" on Justia Law

Flathead Properties, L.L.C. (Appellant) owned a tract of land along Flathead Lake that became an island during certain months due to rising water levels. In 2011, Appellant received a permit from the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office to build a bridge connecting the island to the peninsula. The Community Association for North Shore Conservation (C.A.N.S.C.) challenged the permit, arguing it violated the Montana Lakeshore Protection Act. The District Court voided the permit and ordered the bridge's removal, a decision upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.Following the Supreme Court's decision, Appellant filed a claim for inverse condemnation against Flathead County, arguing that the court-ordered removal of the bridge constituted a taking of its vested property interest, requiring compensation. The County filed a motion to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that since the permit was void ab initio, Appellant never had a vested property interest. The District Court granted the motion, agreeing with the County's reasoning.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Court held that Appellant's complaint contained sufficient facts to support a claim for inverse condemnation or, alternatively, a regulatory takings claim. The Court noted that Appellant had a constitutionally protected property interest in the bridge once it was built and that the County's actions in issuing and then voiding the permit could be seen as a taking requiring just compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Flathead Properties L.L.C. v. Flathead Cty" on Justia Law

Danielle Wood was charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting death of Matthew LaFriniere. The State alleged that Wood purposely or knowingly caused LaFriniere's death by shooting him with a firearm. The case involved a tumultuous relationship between Wood and LaFriniere, including a custody battle over their child. On the evening of May 2, 2018, Wood received a text message purportedly from LaFriniere, stating he was delayed and instructing her to keep their child. Later that evening, LaFriniere was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds.The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, convicted Wood of deliberate homicide. Wood appealed, raising several issues, including the sufficiency of evidence for the State's alternative theory of accountability for deliberate homicide and the clarity of the jury verdict form. The District Court had allowed the State to amend the Information to include an alternative theory of accountability, which Wood contested. The jury was instructed on both direct deliberate homicide and accountability for deliberate homicide, but the verdict form did not distinguish between the two theories.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The Court found that the District Court erroneously submitted the State's alternative theory of accountability to the jury without sufficient supporting evidence. The Court also found that the verdict form provided to the jury was ambiguous and did not allow the jury to unambiguously declare Wood's guilt or innocence regarding each of the charged offenses or theories of criminal liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Wood's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law