Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Miles Kingman was charged with attempted deliberate homicide for the brutal assault of a man outside a bar. A jury acquitted Kingman of the homicide charge but convicted him of aggravated assault, a lesser-included offense. Kingman was sentenced to twenty years' incarceration. On appeal, Kingman (1) claimed that the publicity surrounding the incident had prejudiced the community to such an extent that he could not get a fair trial by jurors drawn from that community, and (2) argued that the prosecutor improperly characterized him at the sentencing hearing as an "animal" that "needed to be caged." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Kingman did not show a sufficient basis for presuming that the entire community jury pool was corrupted by the pre-trial publicity; and (2) although the prosecutor's remarks were inappropriate, there was no indication that the remarks had factored into the district court's decision to impose the maximum sentence for aggravated assault.

Daughter was injured in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist. Father and Daughter were insured by two Farmers Insurance Exchange automobile insurance policies, each providing uninsured motorist protection of $25,000. After the accident, in exchange for a full release signed by Daughter, Farmers paid $25,000 in uninsured motorist coverage under Father's policy insuring the vehicle involved in the accident. Later, Daughter and Father (Plaintiffs) sued Farmers, seeking uninsured motorist benefits under Father's second policy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Farmers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) dismissing Plaintiffs' claim for stacking of uninsured motorist coverage; (2) ruling that neither Plaintiff had standing to bring a claim for medical pay coverage; and (3) declining to certify a putative class for claims of unjust enrichment and disgorgement of premiums.

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

In this consolidated appeal, each Appellant was charged with DUI, and each took a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 8000. Each Appellant sought source code and other information related to the Intoxilyzer 8000 during the prosecution of their cases. The district court limited the requests of each Appellant. After these rulings, each Appellant pled guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all issues, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by giving full faith and credit to a Kentucky court's determination that the source code was a trade secret of CMI, Inc. and determining that Appellants did not show undue hardship requiring the court to order CMI to make the source code available to Appellants; and (2) by quashing portions of Appellants' subpoena duces tecum seeking information regarding the use of every Intoxilyzer 8000 in the state after finding the request was unreasonable and oppressive.