Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tina McColl filed a complaint against Michael Lang, N.D., a licensed naturopathic physician, after Lang used black salve to remove a blemish on Lang’s nose, which resulted in an infected third degree burn on McColl’s nose. The jury found Lang departed from the standard of care in his treatment of McColl, which resulted in damages. The jury, however, unanimously denied punitive damages. McColl appealed, seeking a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) granted Lang’s motion to exclude evidence of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibition against selling, marketing, or manufacturing drugs not FDA approved and the FDA warning letters regarding the use of black salve as a cure for cancer; and (2) denied McColl’s motion to exclude the testimony of Lang’s expert on the standard of care for a naturopathic physician. View "McColl v. Lang" on Justia Law

Appellants owned property adjacent to Whitefish Lake, which the City of Whitefish has annexed. In 2005, Appellants petitioned the City for annexation of the property, and their petition was granted. In 2010, Appellants petitioned to have their property de-annexed. The City Council denied the petition. Appellants commenced a declaratory action in the district court challenging the decision. The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis of lack of service and on the ground that the statute of limitations for Appellants’ claims would bar any re-filed action. In 2014, Appellants filed another petition for de-annexation of their property. The City Council denied Appellants’ second petition for de-annexation, and Appellants filed a second declaratory action challenging the denial of their second petition. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding that Appellants’ action was barred by claim preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on the basis of claim preclusion. View "Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish" on Justia Law

James Raulston started a fire while cutting scrap metal on Bernice McPhillips’ property. The fire spread, burning several structures and a variety of equipment on Gabriel Pearson’s property. Pearson filed a complaint against Raulston and McPhillips, alleging that Raulston was acting as an agent, servant, or employee of McPhillips when he started the fire. The district court granted summary judgment to McPhillips, concluding that McPhillips was not vicariously liable for Raulston’s actions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in finding that McPhillips and Raulston were not engaged in a joint venture, and (2) in finding that Raulston’s use of a cutting torch was not an inherently dangerous activity. View "Pearson v. McPhillips" on Justia Law

After John McClure’s death, his widow (Ellie) and his children (collectively, Siblings) embarked on contentious litigation regarding the McClure Family Trust. Ellie filed suit seeking to enforce an amendment to the Trust. The district court denied relief, concluding that, under the Trust’s plain language, Ellie had no interest in any of the Trust’s assets. The court also denied Ellie’s motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to forfeit Siblings’ interests for purportedly contesting the Trust’s validity. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Ellie had an interest in Trust assets, and therefore, the district court incorrectly concluded that the amendment was invalid; and (2) the district court correctly determined that Siblings did not forfeit their interest in the Trust. Remanded. View "In re Estate of McClure" on Justia Law

Citizens for a Better Flathead brought this lawsuit challenging Flathead County’s 2012 Revised Growth Policy, asserting that the Flathead County Planning Board and the County Commission violated Montana statutes, the Montana Constitution, and Flathead County’s own procedures when they developed the revised policy without adequate public participation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in striking Citizens’ expert report; (2) did not err in determining that the Commission substantially complied with the growth policy’s mandatory procedures for adopting revisions; (3) did not err in determining that the Commission allowed for meaningful public participation in the revision process; (4) did not err in determining that the Commission adequately incorporated public comments into its decision-making process; and (5) properly concluded that Part 6 of the revised growth policy is not unconstitutional. View "Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Flathead County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial in closing to the public a hearing on the admissibility of the victim’s prior allegations of sexual abuse; (2) did not err in preventing Defendant from questioning the victim about prior allegations of sexual abuse; and (3) did not err by not disclosing information contained in sealed records after conducting an in camera review. View "State v. Hoff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of threats and other improper influence in official matters, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the improper influence conviction and reversed the conviction for criminal trespass, holding (1) the Court declines to consider in this appeal Defendant’s argument that the improper influence statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of improper influence; (3) the State did not present sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of criminal trespass; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of prior incident with the arresting officer; and (5) the Court declines to consider whether Defendant’s counsel provided deficient representation by failing to object to the jury instructions on mental state. View "State v. Spottedbear" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial when it closed to the public a hearing on the admissibility of the victim’s prior allegations of sexual abuse; (2) did not abuse its discretion in preventing Defendant from questioning the victim about prior allegations of sexual abuse; and (3) did not err by not disclosing information contained in sealed records after conducting an in camera review. View "State v. Hoff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual abuse of children (referred to as “attempted possession of child pornography”). Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State met its evidentiary burden at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an appreciable fragment of the crime was in such progress that Defendant would have knowingly possessed child pornography unless interrupted by circumstances independent of his own will, as required by the relevant statute. View "State v. Colburn" on Justia Law

After Lisa Warrington accepted an offer of employment with Great Falls Clinic (the Clinic), she signed a written employment contract. On Warrington’s last day at her former job, the Clinic informed her it would not employ her after all. Warrington filed an action against the Clinic, asserting breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and found that the Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (the Act) did not apply. The Clinic petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, arguing that the district court made a mistake of law by concluding that the Act did not apply to the relationship between Warrington and the Clinic. The Supreme Court accepted the petition for supervisory control, affirmed the district court’s determination that the Act does not apply to the relationship between the parties, and affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Warrington on the breach of contract claim. View "Great Falls Clinic LLP v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law