Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant Kalispell Regional Medical Center (KRMC). Defendant Northwest Healthcare Corporation (NWHC) was the parent corporation of the remaining defendant entities. This case arose out of a dispute over the discontinuation of a sick leave buy-back program. Defendants appealed the order of the district court granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly determined that the named Plaintiffs had standing to bring claims against defendants they did not directly work for because the juridically linked Defendants were operating under a common scheme; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). View "Chipman v. Nw. Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

After a bench trial in justice court, Defendant was convicted for DUI per se. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, Defendant moved the justice court to dismiss the charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, arguing that the margin of error in the Intoxilyzer breath test's result created reasonable doubt that Defendant's alcohol concentration had, in fact, reached the statutorily prohibited level. The district court affirmed the justice court's denial of Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant had forfeited his right to challenge the veracity of his breath test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had an evidentiary right to challenge the veracity of his Intoxilyzer breath test at trial, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; but (2) the district court did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction, as a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's alcohol concentration was over the statutorily proscribed limit. View "State v. Gai" on Justia Law

Plaintiff submitted an application for a 119-lot subdivision, which the Board of Missoula County Commissioners denied. Plaintiff petitioned for judicial review of the Board's action and alternatively claimed that the Board's actions constituted a regulatory taking that entitled him to just compensation. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all of Richard's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing Plaintiff to conduct further discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion; (2) the district court properly granted summary judgment to the County on the Board's decision to deny the subdivision; and (3) the County was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's regulatory taking claim. View "Richards v. County of Missoula" on Justia Law

At issue on review in this case was whether the State Board of Land Commissioners properly issued leases to Ark Land Co., a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., without first conducting environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The State Land Board did not conduct environmental review prior to entering the leases, relying on Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-121(2). The district court granted summary judgment to the State Land Board, Ark Land Co., and Arch Coal (Defendants), determining that the State retained sufficient ability to require adequate environmental protections sufficient to meet its constitutional and trust responsibilities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the leases did not allow for any degradation of the environment and specifically required full environmental review and full compliance with applicable State environmental laws, the act of issuing the leases did not impact or implicate the right to a clean and healthful environment in Mont. Const. art II, 3; and (2) therefore, section 77-1-121(2) was not subject to strict or "middle-tier" scrutiny. View "N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Bd. of Land Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from his conviction in the district court of one count of felony aggravated assault. Appellant argued (1) his conviction should be reversed under the plain error doctrine because law enforcement failed to investigate his claim of justifiable use of force as required by Mont. Code Ann. 45-3-112; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move for dismissal of his charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish that any alleged failure of law enforcement officials to comply with section 45-3-112 prejudiced his defense requiring the Court to exercise plain error review; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that his counsel's representation was ineffective. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Bobby Cooksey was convicted of deliberate homicide. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of fifty years in prison with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Appellant's motion for a new trial; (2) the district court properly excluded Appellant's offered evidence concerning the presence of the drug Paxil in the deceased's blood; (3) the investigation of the crime was conducted in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 45-12-112; and (4) Appellant failed to establish that the prosecution's statements during closing argument constituted unfairly prejudicial misconduct. View "State v. Cooksey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against a district court judge, seeking damages for the judge's acts or omissions while presiding over a telephone pretrial conference in a civil action then pending before him. At all relevant times the judge was acting in his official capacity as a district court judge with regard to that case and the pretrial conference. The district court granted the judge's motion to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the acts of which Plaintiff complained occurred while the judge was conducting the pretrial conference and were clearly within the authority and responsibility of a district court judge, the judge was immune from suit, and the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. View "Hartsoe v. McNeil" on Justia Law

LR-123 was enacted by the Montana Legislature in 2011. It proposed a vote in the November 2012 general election on whether to provide a tax credit and potential tax refund, or outright State payment, to individuals in years in which there is a certain level of projected surplus revenue. Plaintiffs filed a complaint contending LR-123 was unconstitutional because it unlawfully delegated legislative powers. The constitutional issue in this case turned upon whether LR-123 impermissibly delegated legislative power to an employee (the legislative fiscal analyst) of one of the Legislature's committees. The district court found that LR-123 unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the legislative fiscal analyst. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that LR-123 was unconstitutional on its face and therefore may not appear on the ballot in November 2012. View "MEA-MFT v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony partner or family member assault. The district court designated Defendant a persistent felony offender and committed him to the department of corrections (DOC) for the statutory minimum period of five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that the complaining witness had a history of a felony forgery charge over a decade before Defendant's trial based on the remoteness in time of the forgery charge and the substantial evidence in the record to support the assault against the witness; and (2) the district court lawfully based its sentence upon Defendant's likelihood of reoffending and the court's desire to rehabilitate him. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order that preliminarily enjoined parts of the Montana Marijuana Act. Montana Cannabis Industry Association, Mark Matthews, Shirley Hamp, Shelly Yeager, Jane Doe, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Michael Geci-Black, John Stowers, Point Hatfield, and Charlie Hamp (collectively, Plaintiffs) cross-appealed. The 2004 Medical Marijuana Act left in place those provisions in the Montana criminal code that make it illegal to cultivate, possess, distribute or use marijuana, while simultaneously protecting authorized users of medical marijuana from being prosecuted. The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 423, which repealed the 2004 Medical Marijuana Act and replaced it with the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA), which dramatically changed the landscape for the cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to both temporarily and permanently enjoin the implementation of the MMA in its entirety. Based on a motion filed with the complaint, the District Court immediately entered a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the MMA which prohibited the advertising of "marijuana or marijuana-related products" and which was scheduled to take effect that day. By stipulation, the temporary restraining order remained in effect pending the preliminary injunction hearing. The court ultimately issued its Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The issues raised on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the District Court erred when it applied a strict scrutiny, fundamental rights analysis to preliminarily enjoin the MMA; (2) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(2), MCA; (3) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(7), MCA; and, (4) whether the court erred in declining to enjoin the MMA in its entirety. The Supreme Court concluded after review: (1) the MMA did not implicate the fundamental right to employment, and reversed the District Court’s holding on this issue; and in pursuing health, an individual does not have a fundamental affirmative right of access to a particular drug. The Court reversed the District Court's holding with respect to this issue. Because the Court remanded the case on the scrutiny issue, it declined to address Issues Two, Three and Four. View "Montana Cannabis v. Montana" on Justia Law