Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant William Parrish appealed a district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted in 2008 of criminal endangerment, and the Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he was sentenced based on erroneous information about his prior criminal record, and that the erroneous information was submitted by the County Attorney because of anger toward him. The district court denied Defendant's petition because Defendant had already raised the issue of the accuracy of his prior criminal history at sentencing. Since that issue was known and could have been raised in the direct appeal, it could not be raised again for postconviction relief. For the first time on appeal, Defendant claimed his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of the erroneous sentencing in the 2010 direct appeal. The Supreme Court declined to consider the issue raised for the first time on appeal; further the Court found that Defendant presented no evidence his sentence was based on the precise number of prior felony convictions he had, and no showing that that fact would have garnered him any material relief had it been raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Parrish v. Montana" on Justia Law

Ober Spear appealed s district court order dismissing his wrongful discharge complaint. Spear had worked as a Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) trooper since 1958. He applied for permanent disability treatment in 1962. MHP placed Spear on sick leave. The Retirement Board held hearings and determined that Spear did not have a permanent disability due in part to Spear's admission that he had gone hunting, bowling and water skiing following his injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. Spear then made a series of unsuccessful attempts to receive further benefits. Notably in 2000, Spear contacted MHP concerning additional sick leave benefits; the attorney general's (AG) office returned the call to clarify Spear's "misconception" that he still worked for MHP. The AG's office informed Spear that his employment with MHP ended in 1962 when he stopped reporting for duty. MHP's chief administrator wrote to the Montana Public Employees Retirement Administration in 2009 in response to the Administration's receipt of inquiries from Spear regarding his retirement. The administrator noted that Spear had not been an MHP employee since 1982. Spear filed a "wrongful dismissal" claim against MHP and the State in 2010, alleging that MHP effectively discharged him from his job. The district court dismissed Spear's case, determining Spear's employment had been "severed" in 1962. Even if he had a viable claim, the court determined Spear was put on notice that he was no longer considered an employee in 2000. The case was dismissed for being outside the one-year statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the district court properly dismissed Spear's case and affirmed. View "Spear v. Montana" on Justia Law

In July 2009, Charles Albert’s Billings, Montana home caught fire. Despite response by the City of Billings Fire Department, the house burned to the ground. Albert sued the City for negligence of the Billings Fire Department, discrimination based upon age and disability, slander, and violation of his constitutional and statutory right to know and obtain documents held by the City. The District Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on all issues. Albert appealed. Finding no error in the district court's consideration of Albert's case, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision. View "Albert v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

Appellant Buddy Wade Pirello appealed a district court order that denied his motion to dismiss one felony charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. Appellant argued that the pending charges should be dismissed on the grounds that the hashish oil that led to his charges was legally possessed pursuant to the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA). On appeal, Appellant claimed that the MMA’s exception for "usable marijuana" necessarily includes the hashish for which he was charged because the term is defined as "any mixture or preparation of marijuana." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that hashish does not fall within a narrow exception to the MMA. Accordingly, the Court held that the District Court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. View "Montana v. Pirello" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Shaune Kuszmaul appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment to Sterling Life Insurance Company (Sterling) on her wrongful discharge claim. Plaintiff worked as an outside sales agent for a subsidiary of Sterling since 2000. In October 2009, Plaintiff drafted a marketing letter promoting Sterling products. She mailed out approximately 1,000 copies of the letter to current and potential customers. Plaintiff did not obtain approval from anyone at Sterling before sending the letter, nor did she clear it with the Montana Department of Insurance (DOI) or any other regulatory agency. A relative of one of the recipients of the letter anonymously notified Sterling by mail that the letter might violate the Policy. The writer sent a copy of its complaint to the Sterling Life Corporate Compliance Office, the Montana DOI, and the CMS Regional Office, exposing Sterling to possible state and federal sanctions. This prompted Sterling to begin an internal investigation. While being investigated, Plaintiff acknowledged that her marketing letter was not in conformance with company policy, but denied doing anything intentionally wrong. She was terminated for violating company policy with regard to the unapproved marketing materials. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the court's decision to grant the insurance company summary judgment. View "Kuszmaul v. Sterling Life" on Justia Law

Defendant John Gordon Briscoe appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon. On appeal, Defendant contended the district court miscalculated his sentence based on a finding of lack of remorse, which he maintained was not affirmatively linked to information in the record. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, however, the Court reversed his sentence and remanded the case back to the District Court to correct the sentence based in part on lack of remorse. View "Montana v. Briscoe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Arthur Rooney appealed a district court's order in favor of Defendant City of Cut Bank in his wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff appealed the court's decision that his termination did not violate Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). The City cross-appealed the District Court's earlier interlocutory order denying the City's motion to dismiss the WDEA claim. The Supreme Court reversed an interlocutory ruling, and did not reach the issues raised by Plaintiff. The Court affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the City on this alternative ground. The Supreme Court concluded Plaintiff was afforded "full and fair adjudication of his claims in the proceedings before the Police Commission." When the City moved for relief from the District Court's order ruling that the WDEA claim was distinct from the appeal of the Police Commission decision, it was correct that issue preclusion applied. View "Rooney v. City of Cut Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Adams was charged in three separate proceedings in Ravalli County: (1) felony operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, fourth or subsequent offense, and a related misdemeanor; (2) forgery and two counts of misdemeanor theft; and (3) operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, fourth or subsequent offense, and several other offenses. Defendant posted bail following his arrest for the first driving under the influence charge, but bail was revoked following the filing of the second. The District Court then set a higher bail amount for his release. Unable to post bail a second time, Defendant remained incarcerated until a combined sentencing hearing in all three proceedings was conducted; Defendant ultimately served 66 days. Defendant appealed each of the three cases, and the Supreme Court consolidated them for this opinion. On appeal, Defendant argued multiple errors in the district court's decisions, ranging from miscalculation of his sentence and credit for time served. The State conceded that the District Court should not have ordered the revocation sentences to run consecutively to and requested that this provision be vacated. Upon the State's concession, the Supreme Court vacated the provision ordering the revocation sentences to run consecutively to one of the DUI sentences and remanded the case for correction. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "Montana v. Adams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Dilley appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Missoula. The district court concluded the City acted within its legal authority when it purchased the Missoula Civic Stadium with tax increment financing (TIF) funds designated for urban renewal. The stadium was originally planned and developed by Play Ball Missoula, Inc. (Play Ball), a volunteer, non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of bringing a minor league baseball team to Missoula. In 2000, Play Ball and the City entered a development agreement that permitted Play Ball to finance and construct a stadium on blighted City property and later convey the facility to the City. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit prior to the City's acquisition of the stadium, alleging the planned purchase using TIF funds was an "illegal payoff of private enterprise debt." On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erroneously failed to specify which provision under Title 7, Chapter 15, Part 42 of the Montana Code that permitted the "payoff." He also argued that the City could not make such an expenditure of TIF funds simply because the practice was not prohibited by statute. Finding that the City's use of TIF money to acquire the stadium was a proper exercise of its urban renewal posers, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the City's favor. View "Dilley v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

R.T. was born in 2009; his mother was killed in a car accident a year later. R.T.'s biological father was a minor at the time of the mother's death, and was living in a halfway house. R.T.'s maternal grandfather petitioned for guardianship/conservatorship of R.T. A year after the guardianship/conservatorship was granted, R.T.'s maternal grandmother (then living in Hawai'i) petitioned to be substituted as R.T.'s guardian/conservator, claiming it was not in R.T.'s best interest to remain in the grandfather's care because he was exposed to second-hand cigarette and marijuana smoke within the grandfather's home. She further alleged that R.T.'s developmental needs were not being met because the child was always left with babysitters. A hearing was held on the grandmother's petition, and the district court eventually granted the grandmother's petition. The grandfather appealed, arguing that R.T.'s father's parental rights were not terminated and therefore the district court ruled in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court's decision and found the record supported the court's conclusion. View "In re R.T. a Minor" on Justia Law