Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating the parental rights of A.M., the putative father of P.T.D., holding that the district court was not required to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when terminating A.M.’s parental rights.After P.T.D. was removed from Mother’s custody, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division identified P.T.D. as an Indian child subject to the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C. 1912. Later, the Department filed a petition to terminate A.M.’s parental rights as P.T.D.’s putative father. By that time, P.T.D. had been in foster care for nearly two years, and A.M. had no meaningful contact with P.T.D., nor had he established a relationship with the child. The district court determined that termination of A.M.’s parental rights was in P.T.D.’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the requirements of ICWA were inapplicable to the facts of this case and that the district court’s decision to terminate A.M.’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous. View "In re P.T.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his daughter, M.B., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Father argued that the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division violated his due process rights when it withheld discovery and that the district court erroneously determined that the Department met its burden under Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f) to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Father failed to establish that the Department’s failure to provide complete discovery amounted to a due process violation; (2) this Court declines to review Father’s claim that his treatment plans were inappropriate; and (3) the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgment and sentence of the district court convicting Defendant of three counts of felony assault with a weapon and two counts of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and sentencing him to thirty years’ imprisonment, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s right to avoid double jeopardy.The drug possession charges for which Defendant was convicted involved possession of methamphetamine and possession of Lorazepam. During trial and after the State rested, the district court dismissed the Lorazepam charge. The jury found Defendant guilty of all charges, including possession of Lorazepam. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for dismissal of the Lorazepam drug possession drug and vacation of the sentence imposed thereon, holding (1) Defendant’s right to be free of double jeopardy was violated because he was convicted of an offense of which he had already been acquitted; (2) the district court did not err in maintaining Defendant’s appointed legal counsel to represent him; and (3) the specified conditions and surcharges of the judgement must be stricken and amended to conform the written judgment with the court’s oral pronouncement and Montana law. View "State v. Barrows" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court refusing to strike for cause a juror who was a state employee in this action filed against the State to recover damages for injuries sustained in a collision with a vehicle owned and operated by the Montana Department of Transportation.Plaintiff sued the State for its employee’s negligence. After a trial, a jury found Plaintiff fifty-one percent at fault in the accident. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s refusal to excuse a juror for cause due to his employment with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff’s challenge for cause because the juror demonstrated that he could act with entire impartiality. View "Bockman-Fryberger v. State" on Justia Law

In this original action, the Supreme Court denied Montanans Against Tax Hikes’s petition for declaratory and injunctive relief to determine whether the ballot statement of Initiative 185 (I-185) met the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 13-27-312, holding that the Attorney General’s ballot statement satisfied the requirements of Montana law.I-185 raised taxes on all tobacco products and amended the definition to include e-cigarettes and vaping products. Petitioners argued that the ballot statement was deficient because it contained false information that was likely to confuse voters, disagreed with the language of the last sentence in the ballot statement, and contended that the ballot statement provided no useful context for the tax increase on moist snuff. The Supreme Court held (1) while the ballot statement may contain a mathematical misstatement, this Court need not alter a technical mistake; (2) the last sentence is not misleading; and (3) not every detail of an initiative can be explained given the word limit on ballot statements. View "Montanans Against Tax Hikes v. State" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court reversed in part the entry of summary judgment in Plaintiff’s declaratory action regarding underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) in favor of Farmers Insurance Exchange, holding that the district court erred by holding that Farmers could offset its underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) obligation to Plaintiff dollar-for-dollar with GEICO’s entire UIM payment.Plaintiff was one of five passengers injured in an accident. The tortfeasor was underinsured by $48,686 as to Plaintiff’s damages. The vehicle in which Plaintiff was a passenger was insured by GEICO, and Plaintiff carried personal vehicle coverage with Farmers, including medical payment (MedPay) coverage and UIM coverage. GEICO paid Plaintiff its individual UIM coverage limit and Farmers paid Plaintiff under her MedPay coverage. In total, Plaintiff received payments of $2,500 less than her total stipulated damages. Disputes Plaintiff had with Farmers led Plaintiff to file this declaratory action. The district court held in Farmers’ favor on the two contested issues. The Supreme Court held (1) the policy language did not permit Farmers to offset its UIM obligation dollar-for-dollar with the entire GEICO UIM payment; (2) Farmers was entitled to offset its UIM obligation with its MedPay payments to Plaintiff; and (3) Plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney fees. View "Cramer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and sentences imposed for three felony counts, holding that the district court erred in ordering certain restitution and that the court’s written judgment did not conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence.Defendant pled guilty to attempted burglary and two counts of burglary. The district court awarded restitution to several individuals and entities, including Amusement Services and Payment Alliance. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred imposing the restitution award to Amusement Services and Payment Alliance because the losses were not supported by affidavit or testimony of the actual victims; (2) the district court’s written judgment did not reflect its oral pronouncement of sentence; and (3) the matter must be remand for the district court to impose only one technology fee rather than a fee per count. View "State v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BN) on Plaintiff’s claims that BN violated the standard of care under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA), holding that Plaintiff’s allegations of error on appeal were unavailing.Plaintiff alleged injury for exposure to asbestos during his work at a treatment plant operated by BN’s predecessor. A jury found in favor of BN. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding certain evidence at trial; (2) Plaintiff was not denied a fair trial due to any alleged trial misconduct on the part of BN; and (3) Plaintiff was not denied a fair trial due to any alleged discovery misconduct on the part of BN. View "Daley v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children, holding that the court erred in proceeding with termination of parental rights in the absence of a conclusive tribal determination regarding each child’s status as an Indian child defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a threshold determination of whether the two children were Indian children based on a conclusive tribal determination of tribal membership and eligibility in the Blackfeet Tribe. The Court noted that the district court may re-enter judgment against Mother on the merits of its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law if it found and concluded on a conclusive tribal determination that the two children are not Indian children. View "In re D.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court pursuant to a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err under the circumstances in denying Defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury regarding the aggravated assault count of the amended information; and (3) the restitution amount imposed by the district court was not clearly erroneous, and the court’s legal conclusion requiring Defendant to pay restitution was correct. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law