Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Chief Water Judge properly admitted historical documents prepared by Pondera in anticipation of litigation under the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule; (2) the Chief Water Judge correctly rejected the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

This case involved a dispute over the water rights to a well (“disputed well”). In 1982, Carl Kambich filed a statement of claim for existing water rights. In 1990, Kambich filed a notice of transfer of water right to Randall and Ila Mae Brooks. The current Water Court case involved the claim originally filed by Kambich and amended by the Brooks. Ernest Nelson objected to the claim, arguing that he was the owner of the disputed well. After a hearing, the Water Master found that the claim belonged to the Brooks and that, although Nelson had presented some valid questions regarding the history of the well, he had failed to overcome the prima facie proof in the statement of claim. The Water Court dismissed Nelson’s objections to the water rights claim by the Brooks. The Supreme Court affirmed the Water Court’s order, holding that the Brooks’ well claim was valid. View "Nelson v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Mines Management, Inc., Newhi, Inc., and Montanore Minerals Corp. (collectively, MMC) sued Defendants, challenging the validity of Defendants’ unpatented mining claims and asserting several tort claims. The district court ruled on several motions and granted injunctive relief for one defendant. MMC appealed. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction, concluding that the lower court had not made sufficient findings to support the granting of the injunction and permit appellate review. MMC then filed a motion for substitution of judge pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804(12). The district court ruled that substitution was unavailable at this stage in the proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion because, upon remand, section 3-1-804(12) did not provide MMC an opportunity to request a substitution of judge. View "Mines Mgmt., Inc. v. Fus" on Justia Law

The predecessor in interest to 71 Ranch filed statements of claim for four right rights located on Confederate Creek (Creek Rights), describing a new point of diversion and place of use for the Creek Rights. Donald Marks, whose water rights were junior to the Creek Rights, filed an objection to the Creek Rights’ place of use and point of diversion. The Montana Water Court dismissed Marks’ objection, concluding that Marks failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut 71 Ranch’s claimed point of diversion and place of use for its water rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Water Court correctly concluded that Marks failed to present sufficient evidence to contradict 71 Ranch’s claimed point of diversion and place of use for its water rights. View "Marks v. 71 Ranch" on Justia Law

In this water right adjudication, the Water Master concluded that the water right of Claimants, property owners, had been abandoned. Claimants filed an objection to the Water Master's report, arguing, among other things, that the Water Master's application of 79 Ranch v. Pitsch to their existing right was an impermissible retroactive application of the law. The Water Court ruled (1) 79 Ranch applied to Claimants' case; but (2) the Water Master erred in finding that Claimants had failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of intent to abandon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Water Court (1) correctly applied 79 Ranch analysis; and (2) correctly concluded that Claimants submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of abandonment. View "Heavirland v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a certain channel adjacent to the Yellowstone River. The disputed channel had been used for years to obtain river water to satisfy water rights held by Heart K Ranch. The City of Livingston owned land adjacent to the channel and argued that Heart K's maintenance activities in the channel harmed the City's property. The Park Conservation District (PCD) permitted Heart K's maintenance activities in the channel as provided in the Natural Steambed and Land Preservation Act. The City petitioned the PCD for a declaratory ruling that the channel was not subject to the permitting process in the Act because it was actually an irrigation ditch not subject to the Act. The PCD determined that the channel was part of the natural watercourse of the Yellowstone River, which was indisputably subject to the Act. The district court upheld the PCD. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City failed to show that the PCD's decision was arbitrary or capricious, characterized by an abuse of discretion, or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. View "Livingston v. Park Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commissions (collectively referred to as DFWP) decided to transfer a group of bison to two reservations as part of a quarantine program. Plaintiffs, collectively referred to here as the Citizens for Balanced Use, filed this lawsuit challenging the DFWP action and seeking to enjoin the bison transport. While the bison transport was still in process, the district court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining certain bison movement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court relied upon erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under Mont. Code Ann. 27-19-201(3). View "Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased property from Defendants in 1993. The warranty deed for the property contained no express mention of water rights, ditch easements, or appurtenances. Plaintiff nevertheless believed that a water right came with the property and that a ditch easement existed to transport the water to his property. Defendants later purchased real property which historically contained a ditch. It was subsequently discovered the property did have a ditch that traversed from a creek, across Defendants' property, to a 20-acre "place of use" on the properly now owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to reopen use of the ditch and filed an action against Defendants seeking a declaration that he had a ditch easement across Defendants' property. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that Plaintiff had no ditch easement across property owned by Defendants. View "Roland v. Davis" on Justia Law

Franz Weinheimer filed a notice of water appropriation in 1971 which listed a point in Section 4 as the point of diversion. Franz's son Francis filed a claim with the water court in 1981. Francis transferred the property interests in the claim to Weinheimer Ranch (Ranch) in 1991. The Ranch filed a motion to amend the claim in 2002 and a supplement to the motion in 2003 seeking to amend the claim's historical right, priority date, and source. The water court denied the Ranch's motion to amend the claim's historic rate and priority date. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts in the record did not require an inference that the Ranch's predecessor in interest mistakenly had listed Section 9 instead of Section 4 on his 1986 notice of appropriation, and the water court reasonably declined to infer such a finding; and (2) the water court properly determined that the Ranch had failed to present substantial evidence in support of its motion to amend its claim. View "Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil" on Justia Law

On December 14, 2012, the district court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing several irrigation districts to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 85-7-1956 and -1957 before executing a water use agreement with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation and the United States. On February 15, 2013, the district court issued another writ of mandate that rescinded and superseded the alternative writ of mandate. The writ of mandate enjoined the irrigation districts from entering into the proposed agreement. The Supreme Court vacated both the district court's writ of mandate and injunction and the court's alternative writ of mandate, holding that the district court (1) issued an appealable order, making the appeal from the district court's writ of mandate and injunction as well as the issue of whether the statutes apply to the water use agreement properly before the Court; (2) improperly granted the writ of mandate and injunction; and (3) incorrectly compelled the irrigation districts to comply with sections 85-7-1956 and -1957 before they executed the water use agreement. View "W. Mont. Water Users Ass'n, LLC v. Mission Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law