Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Charles Clary was charged with aggravated burglary and assault with a weapon. The day before the omnibus hearing, Clary's attorney filed a motion to have Clary transported to the proceeding. The district court did not rule on the motion, and the omnibus hearing proceeded without Clary present. Clary subsequently insisted on proceeding pro se, which the district court allowed. The jury found Clary guilty as charged. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) Clary's right to be present at all critical stages of his criminal proceeding was not violated by his absence from the omnibus hearing where the hearing did not constitute a critical stage requiring Clary's presence; and (2) the district court did not err in allowing Clary to continue pro se without conducting further inquiry into Clary's complaints regarding his attorney where substantial evidence supported the court's finding that Clary made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and Clary did not request substitute counsel. View "State v. Clary" on Justia Law

Lila Clavin (Lila) and Robert Gilbert founded Pastimes and executed an operating agreement (Agreement) that provided that Pastimes would terminate upon the death of a member unless at least two members remained who agreed to continue the business. After Lila died in 2000, Gilbert and Tim Clavin, Lila's son, could not agree on the value of Lila's share of Pastimes at the time of her death. This disagreement led Tim and Gilbert to conclude that Gilbert should continue to operate Pastimes. Gilbert filed a complaint for declaratory relief on behalf of Pastimes in 2005, requesting a date-of-death valuation for Lila's interest in 2005. The district court valued the Estate's interest at the date of trial rather than at the time of Lila's death. The Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part, holding that the district court properly valued the Estate's interest at the date of trial rather than at the time of Lila's death because Gilbert's and Tim's agreement and Gilbert's continued operation of Pastimes constituted a fully executed oral agreement that modified the dissolution provision of the Agreement. View "Pastimes v. Clavin" on Justia Law

After giving birth to a newborn who suffered severe developmental issues resulting from a lack of glucose, Joe and Kathryn Norris (Norris) filed a medical malpractice action against, among others, Dr. Blayne Fritz, a physician who cared for the newborn. The morning before trial, Fritz moved to limit the scope of the testimony of Dr. Tom Strizich, the treating pediatrician, arguing that Norris failed to provide sufficient notice as to Strizich's opinions regarding a newborn's blood glucose level. The district court granted Fritz's motion, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Fritz. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to vacate its judgment and order a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded Strizich's testimony regarding the appropriate standard of care where (1) Strizich was a hybrid witness for purposes of standard of care testimony; and (2) Fritz could not reasonably claim surprise or prejudice from Strizich's proposed testimony. View "Norris v. Fritz" on Justia Law

Burglington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Company (BNSF) contaminated the environment surrounding the Livingston Rail Yard (Yard). Plaintiffs, individuals who owned property adjacent to the Yard, sued BNSF in federal court for damages to their property based on claims of, inter alia, nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of BNSF, finding that the applicable statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether the continuing tort doctrine should apply to the claims presented by Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held (1) the continuing tort doctrine in Montana tolls the statute of limitations for property damage claims of nuisance and/or trespass resulting from contamination that has stabilized, continues to migrate, and is not readily or easily abatable; and (2) the limitations period begins to run when abatement is not reasonable or complete abatement cannot be achieved, and a permanent injury exists. View "Burley v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Susan Miner was convicted of the offense of assault on a peace officer, a felony. Miner appealed, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel did not move for a mistrial when two consecutive prosecution witnesses inadvertently mentioned Miner's potential DUI charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Miner was not prejudiced by the statements, there was no reasonable possibility that the testimony of the witnesses contributed to Miner's conviction; and (2) therefore, the second prong of Strickland v. Washington was not met because Miner was not prejudiced by her counsel's failure to make a motion for a mistrial, and her trial was fundamentally fair. View "State v. Miner" on Justia Law

Carl Murphy was injured while shopping at Home Depot. Murphy subsequently sued Home Depot. Counsel for both parties then began negotiating a settlement offer, but no settlement documents were executed. Home Depot moved to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that Murphy's counsel agreed to a "global settlement" via his correspondence with Home Depot's counsel. The district court granted Home Depot's motion, determining that the parties formed a binding settlement agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no mutual consent between Murphy and Home Depot because there was no agreement on the essential terms of the settlement agreement, and therefore, no settlement agreement was ever reached between the parties. Remanded. View "Murphy v. Home Depot" on Justia Law

Randall Simms was injured during his employment. The Montana State Fund (MSF) provided workers compensation to Simms' employer, and later, paid continuing medical benefits for Simms. MSF subsequently utilized the services of a special investigative unit (SIU) to investigate Simms for fraud. The SIU took multiple videos of Simms in public places. The videos were deemed confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) by the district court. The court allowed them to be used in relation to Simms' workers' compensation claim in any manner consistent with the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure and workers' compensation court (WCC) procedures. Simms appealed, arguing that MSF did not having standing to file an action for dissemination under the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979, and that the district court inadequately balanced the demands of individual privacy against the merits of disclosure, did not follow established rules of statutory construction, and improperly identified and weighed the competing interests at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err when it authorized MSF to disseminate the CCJI under the Act, and the court correctly interpreted the statute and adequately engaged in the statutorily mandated balancing of competing concerns. View "Mont. State Fund v. Simms" on Justia Law

Appellant Wife filed for dissolution of her marriage to Husband. The district court found the marriage to be irretrievably broken, divided property between the parties, ordered Husband to pay child support and Wife's attorney fees, and denied Wife's request for maintenance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the district court (1) was not prevented from properly valuing the properties of the estate; (2) did not err in its division of the marital estate; (3) did not err in calculating the amount of Husband's premarital contribution credit on certain properties; (4) did not err by failing to award maintenance to Wife; and (5) did not err in requiring Husband to pay Wife's attorney fees and in the calculation of those fees. View "In re Marriage of Caras" on Justia Law

The City of Dillon entered an agreement with the McNeills allowing them to connect to a water main for their domestic water supply. Later, the City granted permission to the McNeills to activate an existing water service to their property. The Conners bought the McNeills' subdivided lot, and the City billed and collected for the water that was furnished to the Conners. The water main subsequently froze solid, leaving the Conners without water service for weeks. The Conners sued the City for breach of contract and negligence. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding (1) there was no implied contract between the Conners and the City, and therefore, the Conners' water use was unlawful; and (2) the negligence claim was barred by City Ordinance 13.04.150, which provides that the City is not liable for claims from interruption of water service resulting from shutting off the water in its mains. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City had a legal obligation to provide water to the Conners under an implied contract; and (2) section 13.04.150 did not bar the Conners' claims because the City did not decide to shut off the water service. View "Conner v. City of Dillon" on Justia Law

The Wagners owned property along a river, which was subject to restrictive covenants. Brian Woodward purchased adjacent property that was subject to the same covenants. Woodward later added onto the deck of the home he purchased and built a split-rail fence along his east and west property lines. The Wagners sued, claiming Woodward's additions violated the restrictive covenants. The district court determined (1) the fences did not violate the covenants, but (2) the deck addition violated the covenants. The court ordered Woodward to remove the deck addition. The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated the district court's order requiring Woodward to remove the deck addition from his home, holding (1) any violation of the covenant by the deck addition was de minimus, and (2) given Woodward's detrimental reliance of the Wagners' failure to timely enforce the covenants as they pertained to his home and the absolute absence of damages to the Wagners, it would be inequitable to compel removal of the deck addition. View "Wagner v. Woodward" on Justia Law