Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft by a common scheme stemming from the theft of property from a salvage yard owned by Robert Appley. After a hearing, the district court ordered Defendant to pay a total of $31,878 to the victims. Defendant appealed the court’s order for restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant did not preserve his objection to the award of restitution for two victims based on their lack of affidavits or testimony; and (2) the district court’s restitution order to Appley for the value of scrap metal, road repairs, miscellaneous parts and radiators was supported by substantial evidence, but the court’s calculation of restitution for Appley for the value of two aluminum boats and a 1951 GMC truck was not supported by substantial evidence. Remanded.View "State v. Simpson" on Justia Law

Drew Wendt and Jennifer Wendt had one child from their marriage, and another child from Jennifer’s previous marriage also resided with the couple. After the parties divorced, Jennifer filed a motion to modify the parenting plan requesting that Drew’s parenting time be dramatically reduced. The district court ordered the parties to attend mediation on the matter. Due to Drew’s failure to appear at the mediation the district court entered an order amending the parenting plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the judgment was void as a matter of law because the court did not follow the statutory procedure for amending parenting plans, thus depriving Drew of due process of law.View "In re Marriage of Wendt" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence (DUI) and misdemeanor driving without valid liability insurance. Defendant entered pleas of not guilty and then filed a motion to dismiss for denial of his right to a speedy trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant then changed his plea to guilty on both charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the charges, holding that the delay in bringing Defendant to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.View "State v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of felony partner or family members assault (PFMA), one charge pertaining to his brother and one charge pertaining to his niece. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the State’s case, Defendant moved for judgment of a matter of law as it pertained to the second count, arguing that his niece was not a “family member” as that term is defined in the applicable statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-206. The district court denied the motion. The jury subsequently convicted Defendant PFMA for his assault on his niece. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s niece was not a family member as defined by section 45-5-206 because no evidence was presented that Defendant and his niece resided together in the same household at any time.View "State v. Gregori" on Justia Law

Plaintiff injured his left knee when he stepped into his truck. Plaintiff was insured by an automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm that provided automobile medical payments (med pay) coverage. Plaintiff’s health insurer paid nearly all of Plaintiff’s medical bills, but Plaintiff sought from State Farm benefits pursuant to his med pay coverage. State Farm paid the $25.02 that was unpaid at that time and refused to pay further benefits. Plaintiff sued State Farm, alleging breach of the insurance contract for State Farm’s failure to pay the entirety of his medical expenses. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that State Farm was not required to pay Plaintiff’s medical expenses pursuant to his med pay coverage that were previously paid by Plaintiff’s health insurer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the plain language of the policy, there was no limitation preventing Plaintiff from receiving a duplicate payment for medical expenses under separately purchased, uncoordinated insurance policies. View "Winter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This matter comprised two joined cases, both involving claims to water diverted from the South Fork of Dupuyer Creek in Two Medicine River Basin, into Gansman Coulee, for irrigation in the Teton River Basin. Two sets of claimants (“Duncan” and “Skelton”) filed statements of claim for existing rights. A canal and reservoir company (“Pondera”) appeared in the adjudication of Duncan’s and Skelton’s claims. The Montana Water Court amended the Water Master’s Report and adopted it as amended. Duncan and Skelton appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Chief Water Judge properly admitted historical documents prepared by Pondera in anticipation of litigation under the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule; (2) the Chief Water Judge correctly rejected the Master’s findings regarding certain variables used to determine the historical capacity of a flume on the Thomas ditch; (3) the Chief Water Judge correctly determined that portions of the claimants’ water rights had been abandoned or never perfected; and (4) the Chief Water Judge correctly adopted the Master’s conclusion that the claimants did not acquire any water rights by adverse possession. View "Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Florian Cortese after Plaintiff’s small intestine was perforated during a procedure performed by Cortese. The trial court denied Cortese’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also denied Cortese’s motions for summary judgment and to preclude Plaintiff from presenting unpleaded claims at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that it had jurisdiction to consider arguments Plaintiff had not specifically presented to the Montana Medical Legal Panel; and (2) the Court should not suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to consider the district court’s denial of Cortes’s remaining motions.View "Pickett v. Cortese" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he made to the police. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing. After a hearing on remand, the district court suppressed Defendant’s statements to the police on the grounds that the statements were made involuntarily and granted Defendant a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant’s statements were made involuntarily and in ordering a new trial.View "State v. OldHorn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly intentionally submerging his young son in scalding water. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance based on an absent witness, as (1) Defendant met the diligence requirement contained in Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-202, (2) the interests of justice and Defendant’s right to a fair trial necessitated the grant of his motion for a continuance in order to allow the witness at issue to testify, and (3) the witness intended to testify.View "State v. Gleed" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. Attorney James Goetz attempted to help Appellant with his parole eligibility claim. Displeased with Goetz's assistance, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz. Appellant was assisted by attorneys Allan Baris and Todd Stubbs in this action. In 2010, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz, Baris, and Stubbs, asserting claims related to the alleged withholding of discovery in Appellant’s previous action against Goetz. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by denying Appellant’s motion for a summary judgment hearing; and (2) by denying Appellant’s motion to stay judgment pending completion of discovery.View "Miller v. Goetz" on Justia Law