Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a condition on Defendant’s suspended sentence that Defendant pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment “if financially able.”Defendant pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and was committed to the Department of Corrections for thirteen months, with an additional five years suspended. On appeal, Defendant challenged the imposition of the condition on his suspended sentence that he pay the costs of his imprisonment, probation, and alcohol treatment on the ground that the district court failed to determine his ability to pay these costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made the proper determination of Defendant’s ability to pay the costs that the district court imposed, and Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(4)(b) required no more than what the district court did. View "State v. Daricek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders denying certain elected officers attorney fees, costs, and disbursements, holding that equities did not support such awards under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA).Lynn Nemeth, a Whitehall elector, sought a recall election to determine whether the mayor of Whitehall and some Town Council members (collectively, the Elected Officers) should be recalled from their respective positions. The district court granted the Elected Officers’ petition for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, finding that Nemeth’s recall petitions and circulation sheets did not substantially conform to the statutory forms. The district court eventually decided that the Elected Officers were not entitled to attorneys fees or costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the equities did not support awarding fees and costs under the UDJA because the proper way to stop a recall election based on an insufficient recall petition is to request an injunction pursuant to the Montana Recall Act; and (2) the Elected Officers were not entitled to attorney fees and costs under either Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-711(1)(b) or Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101(8). View "Davis v. Ramey" on Justia Law

The district court did not err when it declined to apply Montana’s anti-lapse statute, Mont. Code Ann. 72-2-717(2), to the Armond W. Tonn Testamentary Trust.Armond W. Tonn’s last will and testament created a trust for the benefit of his three children - William Tonn, Marc Tonn, and Elizabeth Sylvis. When William passed away, the trustee began to distribute one-third of the Trust income to the William Heirs and two-thirds to Elizabeth after Marc passed away. Concerned about the unequal Trust income distributions, the William Heirs filed a petition claiming that in addition to the one-third William Tonn share, they were entitled to one-half of the principal and income attributable to Marc’s share of the Trust. The district court granted summary judgment to the Elizabeth Heirs and awarded them Marc’s share of the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where Armond specifically listed the order in which he wanted distributions to take place and where the William Heirs were not included in the distribution of Marc’s one-third share of the Trust, Armond’s intent regarding distribution was clear and the anti-lapse statute did not apply. View "Tonn v. Estate of Elizabeth Sylvis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for operating a noncommercial vehicle with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more (DUI per se) but reversed the district court’s order imposing the cost of legal counsel on Defendant. The court held (1) Defendant’s right to due process was not violated by a jury instruction that instructed the jurors, when choosing between two competing interpretations of circumstances evidence, to choose whichever interpretation was the “most reasonable”; but (2) the district court erred in imposing costs of legal counsel on Defendant given Defendant’s limited fixed income and disability status. View "State v. Iverson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing with prejudice this action filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile collision. The district court dismissed the action under Mont. R. Civ. P. 37(d) due to each plaintiff’s failure to answer fully interrogatories or to produce relevant documents during discovery. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Defendant’s motion for sanctions, denying one plaintiff’s motion to strike, and denying the other plaintiff’s motion to reconsider because the trial court’s discovery sanction related to the extent of the prejudice that resulted from the discovery abuse. View "Cox. v. Magers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court adjudicating Teton Cooperative Canal Company’s (Teton Canal) water rights on remand from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. The court held that the Water Court did not commit clear error by (1) apportioning volume limits for Teton Canal’s 1890 water right claims and the junior 1936 Eureka Reservoir claims; (2) removing the Eureka Reservoir as storage under the 1890 notice while allowing the Glendora Reservoir’s storage capacity to be added to the volume limit under the 1890 notice; (3) permitting Teton Canal to store its 1890 direct flow water in the Eureka Reservoir during irrigation season; and (4) allowing Teton Canal a year-round period of diversion for the 1890 notice. View "Teton Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Reservoir Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner Rimrock Chrysler Inc.’s petition for judicial review of its request to establish Rimrock as an additional Chrysler-Jeep franchise in the Billings community.Rimrock was awarded a letter of intent by Chrysler Group, LLC to establish a Chrysler-Jeep franchise in Billings that was less than a mile from Lithia of Billings, Inc.’s existing Chrysler-Jeep dealership. Lithia protested Rimrock’s proposed new dealership. The Department of Justice Motor Vehicle Division entered a notice of adoption of final decision finding that good cause did not exist to establish Rimrock as a Chrysler-Jeep franchise in Billings. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Rimrock’s petition for judicial review. View "Rimrock Chrysler, Inc. v. State Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the final decision of the Department of Justice that approved, upon good cause, termination of S & P Brake Supply, Inc.’s (S&P) franchise agreement with Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (Daimler). On appeal, S&P argued that the district court erred by determining that Daimler met its burden to prove good cause for termination of the franchise agreement. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not err in upholding the Department’s determination that good cause existed to terminate the franchise agreement. View "S & P Brake Supply v. Daimler Truck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, and the sentence imposed in connection with the offense of thirteen months with the Department of Corrections for placement in a residential alcohol treatment program and four years suspended to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s for-cause challenge of the prospective juror. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial that his wages were being garnished and an order requiring Defendant to pay nearly $65,000 in restitution plus statutory and administration fees. The court held (1) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Defendant’s wage garnishment was admissible evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 404(b); and (3) there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s restitution order. View "State v. Ailer" on Justia Law