Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal was the third in the course of this litigation. Plaintiffs were a group of landowners with properties on the shores of Flathead Lake and a portion of the upper Flathead River. Plaintiffs commenced this action in 1999 against Montana Power Company (MPC) and MPC's successor, PPL Montana, LLC, asserting claims of trespass, nuisance, a taking of property, and breach of easements. In Mattson II, Plaintiffs filed motions to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The district court granted the motions as to both Defendants. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's orders concerning class certification. On remand, the district court denied Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in its application of Mattson II to the class-certification question under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23; and (2) the six criteria for certification of a class action under Rule 23 were satisfied in this case. Remanded with instructions to certify the class. View "Mattson v. Mont. Power Co." on Justia Law

The Labairs lost their newborn baby after an early delivery by C-section. The Labairs retained Steve Carey and Carey Law Firm (Carey) to pursue their medical malpractice claim against their obstetrician. More than two and a half years later, Carey filed a complaint against the obstetrician. However, Carey failed to file an application with the Montana Medical Legal Panel (MMLP) before filing a complaint with the district court as required by statute and further failed to file an MMLP application within the three-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice claims. The district court later dismissed the Labairs' medical malpractice case with prejudice as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Labairs subsequently filed a complaint for legal malpractice against Casey. The district court entered summary judgment for Carey, concluding that Carey's conduct of failing to file the application with the MMLP did not cause the Labairs injury or damages because the Labairs failed to show that the underlying medical malpractice claims would have succeeded but for the error. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the Labairs' loss of their medical malpractice case was an injury; and (2) the damages associated with that injury remained unproven. View "Labair v. Carey " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of incest and attempted incest involving his daughter, incest and sexual intercourse without consent involving his step-daughter, and sexual intercourse without consent involving his sister-in-law. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not conduct a hearing on Defendant's posttrial allegation that some jurors slept through critical portions of the trial testimony; (2) Defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of both incest and attempted incest, as the State charged and proved two separate and distinct transactions between Defendant and his daughter; and (3) the district court did not commit structural error when it failed to arraign Defendant on the amended charge of attempted sexual intercourse without consent. View "State v. Geren" on Justia Law

In 2000, Decedent executed a will that devised his estate to his niece Dana Fink and her brother, Dustin Badgett. In 2009, approximately seven weeks before his death, Decedent signed a quitclaim deed conveying substantial real property to himself and Roberta Williams, Decedent's employee, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. After Decedent's death, Fink challenged the validity of the quitclaim deed, claiming her uncle was not competent to execute the deed. After a bench trial, the district court held that the quitclaim deed was void and had no legal effect. In addition, the court denied Williams' request for reimbursement for the mortgage and tax payments she had paid on the property for the period she held the property under the deed. Williams appealed the reimbursement ruling only. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Williams' request for reimbursement of the monies she paid toward the mortgage and taxes on the subject property because Williams failed within the time allotted to present evidence in support of her request for such reimbursement. View "Fink v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by partially denying his motion in limine to exclude video footage depicting administration of the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAST) administration without sound over Defendant's objection. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the admission of the PAST evidence by video was prejudicial error, as (1) the video was impermissibly used as substantive evidence of Defendant's intoxication without the State satisfying the requirement of State v. Damon and Mont. R. Evid. 702 to call an expert to testify regarding the reliability and accuracy of the PAST; (2) the potential of unfair prejudice in admitting the evidence outweighed its probative value, as it prompted the inference that Defendant failed the PAST; and (3) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Lozon" on Justia Law

When Plaintiff brought her daughter to play in a city park, the child fell from a slide in the playground area and suffered a severe head injury. Plaintiff sued the City for negligently failing to maintain a safe depth of impact-absorbing material in the area under the slide. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, (1) determining that the "public duty doctrine" applied in this case, that the City owed no duty to Plaintiff's daughter, and therefore, the City could not be held liable for the accident; and (2) rejecting Plaintiff's argument that the recreational use statute applied to this case and imposed liability upon the City for willful or wanton misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based upon an analysis of foreseeability, it was reasonable and proper to hold the City to a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining its public parks, and thus, the public duty doctrine did not apply here; and (2) the recreational use statute applied to this case, and the determination of whether the City's conduct rose to the level of willful or wanton misconduct should be decided at trial. View "Gatlin-Johnson v. Miles City" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed a complaint with the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC), alleging that Northwestern Energy had been overcharging consumes for its street lighting services. The PSC dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded with instructions to remand the case to the PSC for a redetermination of whether to allow the filing of an amended complaint. On remand to the district court, Petitioners filed a motion seeking $1,137 in costs incurred while responding to objections before the PSC and courts. Petitioners also renewed a motion asking the district court to initiate an immediate rate reduction pending the PSC's final decision. The district court denied both of the Petitioners' requests and remanded to the PSC. The Supreme Court affirmed that order, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Petitioners their costs for the initial proceedings in district court and first appeal to the Supreme Court, and (2) denying Petitioners' request for a temporary rate decrease, pending the PSC's decision on remand. View "Williamson v. Mont. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After an agent with the Tri-Agency Safe Trails Task Force purchased quantities of marijuana from Defendants in excess of what was legal under the Medical Marijuana Act, law enforcement arrested Defendants. Officers executed search warrants for Defendants' vehicles, their residence, and the garage Defendants frequented, retrieving four times the amount of marijuana Defendants were allowed to possess as caregivers and patients under the Act. Defendants were charged with several drug-related counts. Defendants filed a joint motion to suppress and dismiss, arguing that the state engaged in "outrageous government conduct" by obtaining evidence against them in violation of their federal due process rights. The district court granted the motion because the agent broke numerous laws under the banner of law enforcement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the agent's conduct stopped short of violating the fundamental fairness shocking to the universal sense of justice mandated by the due process clause, the district court erred in dismissing Defendants' charges based on the outrageous government conduct defense. View "State v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

Mike Alexander was one of two former employees of Bozeman Motors who filed suit against Bozeman Motors and its president and managers, alleging negligence, battery, and negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs claimed long-term physical and emotional injuries resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide and propane. Alexander died after filing suit. Bozeman Motors moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims against it were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of Montana's Workers' Compensation Act. The district court granted Bozeman Motors' motion, holding that the conduct of Defendants did not rise to the level of deliberate intent to cause specific harm, and that Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-413, which provides an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Act, was constitutional. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with respect to Alexander's claims. On remand, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 39-71-413(2) does not create an impermissible class of employees in violation of equal protection; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) the court did not err in denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Alexander's cause of death. View "Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the car in which he was a passenger and which Defendant was driving crashed after Defendant lost control of the vehicle. Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by Defendant's negligence. Following a jury trial, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him $27,000. Plaintiff, having presented evidence of past medical expenses totaling $35,030, filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Plaintiff was not entitled to the full amount of damages he requested; and (2) thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's motion for a new trial. View "Murray v. Whitcraft" on Justia Law