Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, while in the course of her employment, was injured while the van in which she was riding was struck by a bus owned by Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for accident-related injuries. The district court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and ordered that the issues of causation and damages would be determined at trial. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $59,500. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the opinions and reports of doctors that did not testify at trial. View "Reese v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was on duty as an officer at a bank on December 11, 2004 when he had a physical altercation with Defendant. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages against Defendant on March 18, 2009. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing into evidence a letter from a medical doctor regarding Plaintiff’s medical history and diagnosis; (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the statute of limitations governing Plaintiff’s claim; and (3) the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence. View "Siebken v. Voderberg" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her five minor children, who had been adjudicated as youths in need of care. The district court concluded that Mother’s conduct or condition that made her an unfit parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not misapprehend the effect of the evidence in reaching its conclusion that Mother was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

After Buyers purchased a home, they discovered mold growing in the basement. Buyers sued the Sellers’ real estate agent (Agent), alleging negligence. Specifically, Buyers claimed that Agent was obligated to discover adverse material facts about the property and to disclose those facts to them. The district court granted summary judgment for Agent, concluding that the Agent had no duty to Buyers to discover adverse material facts about the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Agent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the question of duty because Buyers’ negligence claim against her was premised upon inspection and discovery duties that do not exist. View "Watterud v. Uhren" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving without liability insurance, habitual traffic offender operating motor vehicle, and refusal to submit to breath or blood alcohol and/or drug test. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained from the stop of his vehicle for lack of particularized suspicion. The municipal court denied the motion. Defendant entered into a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s factual findings regarding the existence of particularized suspicion were not clearly erroneous. View "City of Missoula v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). As part of the DUI investigation, Defendant provided a breath sample on an Intoxilyzer 8000. Defendant moved to bar the admission of the results of his breath sample, asserting that insufficient foundation existed to conclude that the instrument and the instrument operator were properly recertified under the Administrative Rules of Montana. The justice court granted the motion to suppress. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a sufficient foundation existed to admit the results of Defendant’s breath test under the administrative rules. View "State v. Poitras" on Justia Law

Forquest Ventures was formed to operate a placer mining enterprise in Helena, Montana. Ken Hagman relied on purported assay reports of the site allegedly performed by Advanced Analytical before incorporating Forquest. Following incorporation, Forquest sold or issued stock to investors, including Investors. Because there was little precious metal content at the site, Forquest realized no profits and Investors received no return on their investments. Emilio and Candice Garza, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Forquest investors, sued. The Garzas then filed an amended complaint adding the other Investors as named plaintiffs. Forquest filed a third-party complaint against Advanced Analytical. The district court granted summary judgment to Investors on their Montana Securities Act (Act) claims and granted Advanced Analytical’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that Investors timely asserted their claims under the Act; (2) did not err in determining that the non-Garza Investors’ claims relate back to the original complaint’s filing date; (3) correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Forquest’s failure to use reasonable care in the sale of securities to Investors; but (4) erred in dismissing Advanced Analytical for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc." on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for legal separation, and Husband’s answer requested the court to enter a decree of dissolution. After a trial, the Standing Master apportioned the marital estate, denied Husband’s request for spousal maintenance, and denied both parties’ request for attorney’s fees. The district court affirmed and adopted the Standing Master’s report in its entirety. Husband appealed, arguing that the apportionment of the bulk of the marital estate to Wife was not fair and equitable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in reviewing and adopting the Standing Master’s marital estate division. View "In re Marriage of Kostelnik" on Justia Law

The Gallatin Gateway County Water & Sewer District sought a permit for a proposed wastewater treatment system. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted a wastewater discharge permit. Gateway Village, LLC, which owns land adjacent to and down-gradient from the proposed activities, requested judicial review of DEQ’s issuance of the permit and alleged that the discharge of wastewater into groundwater extending under its surface property would constitute a common law trespass. The district court determined that further environmental analysis was necessary and remanded the case to DEQ. The court also denied DEQ’s and the District’s motions for summary judgment or dismissal of Gateway Village’s trespass claim and denied Gateway Village’s request for attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the district court’s order addressing the trespass claim, holding that, having remanded the case, the district court should have declined to address the trespass claim; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Gateway Village’s request for attorney’s fees. View "Gateway Village, LLC v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

August Schreiber’s (the decedent) will devised three lots and five certificates of deposit (CDs) to named beneficiaries (the beneficiaries). Before the decedent died, he sold the lots and the CDs. The personal representative, who was also the residuary beneficiary of the will, concluded that the decedent spent the process of the sales prior to his death. The personal representative filed a final accounting and petition for distribution calling for the beneficiaries to receive nothing and the residuary beneficiary to receive the net distributable estate. The district court denied the final accounting and petition for distribution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that the decedent did not intend ademption of his specific devise of the lots, so the proceeds of the sale of the lots were to be distributed to the beneficiaries, regardless of whether the original funds could be traced; (2) incorrectly concluded that the decedent did not intend ademption of the devise of the CDs and thus erred in ordering the personal representative to distribute to the beneficiaries the value of those CDs; and (3) did not err when it denied the final accounting submitted by the personal representative. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Schreiber" on Justia Law