Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When David Goldan began working as an independent contractor insurance agent for Farmers Insurance Exchange, Farmers and Goldan entered into an Agency Appointment Agreement defining the parties’ rights and obligations. After Farmers terminated Goldan, Farmers sued Goldan alleging that Goldan breached his contractual duties and fiduciary responsibilities under the Agreement by soliciting and servicing the insurance business of policyholders within a year of his termination. Goldan counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that Farmers terminated him without cause. The jury ruled in favor of Goldan on all issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) by denying Farmers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the question of damages; (2) in denying Farmers’ motion for sanctions based on Goldan’s alleged discovery violations; and (3) in concluding that damages should not be limited to a three-month notice period allowed in the contract for terminations without cause. View "Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Goldan" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled guilty to robbery. Since then, the district court revoked Appellant’s sentence three times. The third petition to revoke was filed in 2015. Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the State did not comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-1012(2). The district court denied the motion to dismiss and revoked Appellant’s probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the revocation of his sentence pursuant to section 46-23-1012(2). View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law

In 2003, Mother and Father divorced. In 2015, Father made a second attempt to modify his child support obligation for the two children he had with Mother. After a hearing, the district court stayed Father’s child support obligation for thirteen months and then ordered that Father’s monthly child support would resume and that Father would be required to pay off the child support accumulated during the stay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to modify his child support obligation. View "In re Marriage of Scanlon" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled guilty to robbery. Since then, the district court revoked Appellant’s sentence three times. The latest revocation occurred in 2015. Appellant appealed, asserting that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the revocation of his sentence on the grounds that the State did not comply with the statutory procedure set forth in Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-1012(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition to revoke, as the State complied with the plain meaning of the statute. View "State v. Rossbach" on Justia Law

In 2000, Paul Kurth, who never married or had children, died at the age of eighty-two. In 2013, Sinda and Marty Puryer, Kurth’s niece and her husband, petitioned to probate a document entitled “Instructions and Last Will and Testament of Paul L. Kurth.” Marty claimed Kurth dictated the contents of this document to him and then signed it in the presence of two witnesses. Kurth’s nephew challenged the will. The district court eventually ruled that Mont. Code Ann. 72-3-122(1) barred probate of Kurth’s alleged will and, therefore, that Kurth had died intestate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Kurth died intestate and that his estate must be distributed in accordance with Montana’s intestacy statutes. View "In re Estate of Kurth" on Justia Law

The City of Missoula filed a complaint to condemn, pursuant to Montana’s law of eminent domain, the water system that provided potable water to the residents of the City. The water system was owned and operated by Mountain Water Company. After a bench trial, the district court issued a preliminary order of condemnation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that its contemplated use of the water system as a municipally owned water system was “more necessary that the current use as a privately owned for-profit enterprise,” as required by Montana’s eminent domain statutes. View "City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co." on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with thirty-five counts of violating an order of protection. Defendant moved to dismiss thirty-four of the thirty-five counts on the grounds that the offenses were a continuing course of conduct rather than a series of individual crimes. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then entered a plea agreement with the State under which the State dropped all charges of violating an order of protection. Defendant instead entered a guilty plea to one count of felony stalking. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Bozeman City Commission adopted the Nondiscrimination Ordinance 1890, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender expression by landlords, providers of public accommodations, and parties engaged in residential real estate transactions. Petitioners, certain Bozeman residents, filed suit against the City of Bozeman, the Commission, and the City Commissioners (collectively, Respondents) seeking a declaration that the Ordinance is invalid as a matter of law. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Petitioners did not present a justiciable case or controversy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing their complaint based on the conclusion that Petitioners were requesting an advisory opinion; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and to amend. View "Arnone v. City of Bozeman" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition to involuntarily commit S.H. based upon a psychiatrist’s recommendation. The district court appointed counsel to represent S.H. After a hearing on the petition, the district court ordered S.H. committed to the Montana State Hospital for a period not to exceed three months. S.H. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court relied on sufficient evidence to determine S.H. required commitment because she was either unable to care for her basic needs or was a threat to others; and (2) S.H.’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance. View "In re S.H." on Justia Law

This dispute involved multiple water right holders on the mainstream of the Teton River in Teton and Chouteau Counties. Teton Prairie owned property upstream from Appellees’ properties. Appellees held water rights for stock water purposes and for domestic use. Teton Prairie’s water rights were for irrigation and were junior to all of Appellees’ rights. Appellees filed suit against Teton Prairie, claiming wrongful interference of a water right and wrongful diversion of water by a junior water right holder, and requested injunctive relief. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees, finding that Teton Prairie violated the prior appropriation doctrine by ignoring Appellees’ call for water. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly applied the prior appropriation doctrine; (2) correctly found that Teton Prairie failed to establish the necessary elements to raise the defense of futile call doctrine; and (3) correctly granted injunctive relief to Appellees. View "Kelly v. Teton Prairie LLC" on Justia Law