Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On July 25, the State charged Defendant with partner or family member assault (PFMA), alleging that the pending charge was a felony. Defendant pled not guilty on August 18. On October 26, the district court dismissed the felony charge. The State then filed a misdemeanor PFMA charge against Defendant. On November 15, Defendant pled not guilty to the misdemeanor charge. The case was set for trial on May 5. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial, alleging that the State failed to bring his case to trial within six months of his initial plea on the dismissed felony PFMA charge. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and Defendant pled guilty to the reduced charge of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that Defendant's not guilty plea to the felony PFMA charge was irrelevant in determining whether Defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated; and (2) correctly concluded that Defendant's right to a speedy trial had not been violated when he filed his motion to dismiss less than six months after pleading not guilty to the misdemeanor PFMA charge. View "State v. Case" on Justia Law

A plane owned by Metro Aviation crashed in Montana, killing two passengers. Metro filed suit under against the United States in a U.S. district court in Montana, alleging negligence by FAA air traffic controllers. Metro asserted alternative claims of indemnity and contribution seeking to recover settlement amounts paid by Metro to the passengers' estates. The case was subsequently transferred to a U.S. district court in Utah. The United States moved for partial summary judgment on Metro's indemnity and contribution claims, asserting that under Utah and Montana law, the claims were barred. The federal Utah court concluded that Montana law applied but that the law in this area was unsettled. The Montana Supreme Court accepted the court's certified questions about these questions of law and answered, (1) Metro could not seek contribution from the United States with respect to the estate of one passenger, whose claim was settled without any litigation having been filed; (2) Metro could not seek contribution from the United States with respect to the estate of the second passenger because Metro settled with the estate prior to trial without joining the United States as a party; and (3) Metro was not entitled to indemnity from the United States. View "Metro Aviation, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife separated in 2010, after which Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The district court (1) determined that any interest Husband might receive from his mother's trust did not impact the marital estate; (2) determined that the marital home should be sold and the proceeds split between the parties; and (3) determined that each party should be responsible for their own student loan debt and business loans. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Husband's interest in his mother's trust from the marital estate; (2) the district court equitably distributed the marital estate; and (3) Husband was not entitled to attorney's fees and costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Parker" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to her two daughters (collectively, Children). Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) undertook sufficient active efforts to reunify Mother and Children as required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); (2) the Department provided sufficient evidence that reunification of Children with Mother would cause serious physical or emotional damage to Children; (3) the district court correctly determined that Mother had stipulated to the terms of the treatment plan; and (4) all stipulations in ICWA involuntary termination proceedings need not be reduced to writing. View "In re D.A." on Justia Law

After Defendant stole numerous firearms and other merchandise from his employer, the United States charged him with theft of firearms from a federal licensee and possession of stolen firearms. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charges. Meanwhile, the State charged Defendant with theft by common scheme for his theft of the non-firearm merchandise. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory double jeopardy rights. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that double jeopardy did not bar the State's prosecution of Defendant for his theft of non-firearm items pursuant to the three part test set forth in State v. Fox. View "State v. Cline" on Justia Law

In 2007, Defendant received a suspended sentence for felony offense that was ordered to run consecutively to his revocation in another proceeding in which he was serving probation after being transferred from juvenile to adult supervision. In 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke Defendant's 2007 suspended sentence. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The district court denied Defendant's petition and revoked Defendant's 2007 sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the petition where (1) Defendant was here challenging his 2007 as illegal, and his challenge was untimely; and (2) the consecutive designation of the 2007 was not properly raised here. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff injured his shoulder while working for his employer, who was insured by the Montana State Fund. The State Fund paid for Plaintiff's two shoulder injuries and paid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits after informing Plaintiff that if he returned to gainful employment without the State Fund's knowledge and continued to receive benefits, he would be subject to legal action or criminal prosecution. After the State Fund discovered that Plaintiff had built and sold furniture and worked at a vacuum cleaner store while receiving TTD benefits, the assistant attorney general charged Plaintiff with theft, a felony. The State Fund subsequently terminated Plaintiff's TTD benefits. Plaintiff filed suit against the State fund and its private investigators, alleging that Defendants violated Montana's Insurance Code regarding unfair claim settlement practices and pleaded a variety of common law causes of action. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of the State Fund, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting the State Fund's motion to dismiss Defendant's claims under the Insurance Code; and (2) granting the State Fund's motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's common law claims. View "White v. State ex rel. Mont. State Fund" on Justia Law

The Leonards entered into contracts with Centennial for the sale of a log home kit and construction of a custom log home. The Leonards later released Centennial from any claims for damages for defective construction or warranty arising out of the home's construction. Greg and Elvira Johnston held a thirty-six percent interest in the property at the time the release was signed. Eventually, all interest in the property was transferred to the Elvira Johnston Trust. A few years later, because of a number of construction defects affecting the structural integrity of the house, the Johnstons decided to demolish the house. The Johnstons sued Centennnial for negligent construction, breach of statutory and implied warranties, and other causes of action. The district court granted summary judgment for Centennial, finding that the Johnstons' claims were time-barred and were waived by the Leonards' release. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court's ruling that the Johnstons' claims were time-barred and directed that the decision on remand apply only to the interest owned by the Johnstons at the time the release was executed; and (2) affirmed the district court's conclusion that the release was binding on the Leonards' sixty-four percent interest, later transferred to the Trust. View "Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of negligent vehicular assault and driving while suspended. The district court sentenced Defendant to a six-year deferred sentence. Defendant, who lived in Oregon, expected to immediately return to Oregon but was informed by his probation officer that he must complete ninety days on supervision before he was permitted to leave Montana. Defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant's plea was entered voluntarily because defense counsel never promised that Defendant would be allowed to reside in Oregon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Defendant failed to demonstrate defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (2) the district court correctly concluded that Defendant's plea was not involuntarily entered where defense counsel's failure to accurately predict that Defendant would have to complete ninety days in Montana on good behavior before returning to Oregon did not rise to the level of gross mischaracterization. View "State v. Prindle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals, a felony, for knowingly mistreating or neglecting several cats in the form of cruel confinement and/or inadequate nourishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants, without justification, knowingly subjected their animals to mistreatment or neglect; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion for a mistrial, as the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument were not so egregious as to render the juror incapable of judging the evidence fairly. View "State v. Criswell" on Justia Law