Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ralph Jentile appealed a district court decision that ordered him to pay for the repairs to two Whitefish Police Department patrol cars that collided with each other while pursuing Jentile. Jentile raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the amount of restitution Jentile was ordered to pay should be reduced because of the alleged comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident; and (2) whether Jentile's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to specifically argue that the amount of restitution should have been reduced because of the comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing that the district court should have taken the officer's negligence into consideration when arriving at the restitution amount. View "City of Whitefish v. Jentile" on Justia Law

Birth mother N.S. (Mother) and birth father K.R. (Father) appealed a district court order that terminated their parental rights to their four-year-old twin daughters, T.R. 1 and T.R. 2. Mother also appealed the District Court’s order denying her a new trial. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the District Court abused its discretion by terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights; (2) whether the District Court erred in finding it was in the children’s best interests to terminate those rights; (3) whether the District Court erred in finding the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; (4) whether the District Court adequately addressed the appropriateness of the treatment plans in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Furthermore, Mother asserted that the District Court abused its discretion by denying her a new trial based on new evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence in the record to support the District Court’s findings that the conditions rendering Mother and Father unfit were unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the parental rights. "It [was] manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that there was not an abuse of discretion." View "Matter of T.R.1 and T.R.2" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Daniel John Paulsrud of deliberate homicide with a dangerous weapon in 2011. The district court sentenced Paulsrud to 110 years in the Montana State Prison without the possibility of parole. Paulsrud challenged the parole restriction, requesting that his sentence be vacated. The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court were: (1) did the District Court impose an illegal sentence by restricting the Defendant's eligibility for parole?; and, (2) does a life sentence without parole based on the nature of the crime constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The Court answered both questions in the negative and affirmed the district court. View "Montana v. Paulsrud" on Justia Law

Gordon Sees The Ground, Jr. appealed a district court's order that denied his petition for postconviction relief. In 2008, Sees The Ground was convicted of felony DUI after Billings police officers found him slumped over the steering wheel of a car with the ignition key in the on position, the headlights on, and parked partially in the traffic lane. Sees The Ground appealed the conviction and the Supreme Court affirmed. Sees The Ground was subsequently charged with and convicted of perjury based upon the testimony he gave at his DUI trial. Sees The Ground testified at the DUI trial that Orrie Plainbull had driven the car to the location where Sees The Ground was later found behind the wheel. Sees The Ground appealed the perjury conviction but the appeal was withdrawn. Sees The Ground claimed in his postconviction relief petition that the prosecution in his DUI trial withheld material information about a witness who called 911 to report Sees The Ground slumped over in the vehicle. Sees The Ground claims that the prosecution withheld information that Wood also witnessed two men in a car and saw the passenger get out, fall on the sidewalk, and injure himself while the vehicle drove away. The injured man proved to be Orrie Plainbull (the person Sees the Ground claimed was driving which was the basis of his perjured testimony) and the vehicle that drove away was the one in which police later found Sees The Ground slumped over the steering wheel. Having reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal the Court concluded that Sees The Ground did not meet his burden of persuasion and that the District Court properly denied relief. View "Sees the Ground v. Montana" on Justia Law

Candice Brilz filed an action in Montana state court purportedly asserting statutory and common law bad-faith claims against Metropolitan General Insurance Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan removed the action to federal court and filed a motion for summary judgment, which the federal court granted. Thereafter, Brilz commenced this suit district court seeking a determination that she may pursue her common law bad-faith claim against Metropolitan. Because the statute of limitations on that claim had since expired, Brilz requested a ruling that she may pursue the claim pursuant to 27-2-407, MCA, or the Supreme Court's doctrine of equitable tolling. The District Court dismissed the action, and Brilz appealed. The Supreme Court concluded that principles of claim preclusion barred her from filing a second action against Metropolitan arising out of the same underlying facts. Accordingly the Court affirmed the District Court's judgment. View "Brilz v. Metropolitan General Ins." on Justia Law

Faith Malpeli brought an inverse condemnation action against the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), seeking compensation for the alleged taking of her property as a result of the reconstruction of Montana Highway 191 near Big Sky during a highway safety improvement project. A jury found that MDT had not taken a property right belonging to Malpeli, and therefore did not reach the question of compensation. Malpeli appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by: (1) denying Malpeli's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial; (2) excluding Malpeli's appraiser from testifying; and (3) allowing MDT to disclose to the jury an offer of compromise it had made to Malpeli before this action was filed. MDT cross-appealed, arguing that the District Court erred by denying its motion for partial summary judgment before trial. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court determined that the motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of MDT. View "Malpeli v. Montana" on Justia Law

A jury found Jared Rosling guilty of deliberate homicide, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs on October 18, 2004. Attorney Randi Hood represented Rosling throughout his criminal proceedings. The district court sentenced Rosling to life in prison without parole for the homicide conviction. The court imposed concurrent sentences for the other convictions. Rosling filed a notice of appeal. The court appointed attorney William Hooks as Rosling's appellate counsel. Rosling appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed Rosling's convictions and sentences. The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court concerned whether Rosling received ineffective assistance of counsel during both his trial and appeal. Finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Rosling v. Montana" on Justia Law

Grant Creek Heights, Inc. and Kenneth R. Knie appealed a district court order that granted Missoula County’s third motion for summary judgment. Missoula County, Missoula County Commissioners, J. Fern Hart and Michael Kennedy cross-appealed the district court’s denial of their second motion for summary judgment. The issues on appeal were related to whether the district court erred in denying the second and granting the third motions. Upon review of the district court order, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed both decisions. View "Grant Creek Heights, Inc. v. Missoula Co." on Justia Law

Al Ballard and Ecosafe Gold Recovery, LLC (Ballard), appealed a district court's order entered following the Supreme Court’s remand in the first appeal of the case. The Supreme Court reversed the entry of judgment in favor of Ballard, and reversed the award of attorney fees to Ballard and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Upon remittitur, Russell and Melissa Levens moved for an order on remand that would provide various forms of relief, including attorney fees. When Ballard did not initially respond, the District Court entered an order requiring Ballard to immediately restore a 30-foot buffer zone by appropriate filling, compacting, and buttressing. The court ordered Ballard to commence work immediately and to complete the restoration within 30 days, and imposed a $100 per day penalty for every day beyond the 30-day deadline that the restoration was incomplete. The court required Ballard to mark the boundary of the buffer zone and to pay Levens' attorney fees and costs, and scheduled a hearing to determine the proper amount of fees. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err on remand of the case. "Ballard has no meritorious defense and the takings claim was raised for the first time on appeal." The District Court properly awarded attorney fees to Levens under the agreement. The Levens were likewise entitled to attorney fees on appeal. View "Ballard et al v. Levens" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Arthur Wing appealed his conviction on felony driving while under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense). Appellant argued at trial that he had not been driving on the day of his arrest, and that another man, Michael Halverson, had been the driver before the vehicle was disabled. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the district court abused its discretion by preventing a defense witness from testifying about a statement against interest made by Halverson. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Halverson's alleged statements should have been admitted into evidence, and the jury should have been given the opportunity to consider it. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Montana v. Wing" on Justia Law