Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with partner or family member assault, second offense. The State filed notice that the Crime Victims Compensation Program sought restitution from Defendant for the amount the Program paid to the victim’s counselor as a result of treatment required by Defendant’s conduct. Defendant pleaded guilty to negligent endangerment and requested a hearing on the amount of the restitution. After a hearing, the municipal court found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the amount of restitution sought and ordered Defendant to make restitution to the Program for the counseling costs. The district court affirmed the restitution order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court erred in denying Defendant’s request to examine the mental health treatment form that supported the State’s restitution request, because, to the extent the form did not contain the victim’s private information, Defendant was entitled to view the form as a matter of procedural due process. View "State v. McClelland" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that he had not been brought to trial within six months of entering his not-guilty plea. The justice court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that good cause existed to hold Defendant’s trial past the six-month deadline provided in Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-401(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the justice court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as good cause existed for holding his trial past the six-month deadline. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2013, Froid Elementary School District No. 65 petitioned the Roosevelt County Superintendent of Schools to transfer territory from the Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to the Froid School District. Poplar opposed the transfer. The deputy superintendent appointed for the purpose of hearing and deciding the petition approved the territory transfer. Poplar appealed. The district court awarded summary judgment to Poplar and vacated the order transferring territory to Froid on the basis that the territory transfer statute required statements to be made under oath and that the deputy superintendent’s failure to administrator oaths was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Poplar failed to preserve its statutory issue concerning the necessity of sworn testimony and it was error for the district court to reach the merits of the question. Remanded. View "In re Petition to Transfer Territory from Poplar Elementary Sch. to Froid Elementary Sch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Lincoln County and several Lincoln County Commissioners, alleging certain errors committed in the resignations and appointments of the Commissioners. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The County subsequently asked the court to award it attorney fees. The district court ultimately awarded the County a total of $11,281 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err by issuing an order prepared by the county’s counsel; (2) did not abuse its discretion by considering rates charged by practicing attorneys outside the Lincoln County legal market when deciding whether the County’s attorney fees were reasonable; but (3) did abuse its discretion when it awarded supplemental attorney fees to the County. View "Swapinski v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his ex-wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements made while in police custody, because even if the police questioned Defendant in violation of his right to counsel and right to remain silent there was no reasonable probability that admission of the interview contributed to Defendant’s conviction; and (2) because there was no reasonable possibility the results of Defendant’s trial would have been different had the interview been held inadmissible, Defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to present the video recording of the police interview at the suppression hearing must fail. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this negligence action for injuries she allegedly sustained her her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Defendant. After a trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Plaintiff, awarding her $3,665 in total damages. Plaintiff filed a motion for a mistrial and for a new trial, arguing that she was prejudiced by Defendant’s failure to disclose that some of Defendant’s photographic evidence depicted damage from a separate accident. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and reversed, holding that defense counsel’s misrepresentation regarding the photographs constituted an irregularity in the proceeding and deprived Plaintiff of a fair trial. View "O Connor v. George" on Justia Law

Starting in 2007, A&C Soaring Eagle, Inc. (A&C) purchased chemicals and fertilizer on account from Fitterer Sales Montana, Inc. (Fitterer). In 2009, Fitterer filed suit alleging that A&C and Clint Mullin, Jr. (Clint), A&C’s president and sole shareholder, personally owed Fitterer $98,184 and that it was owed interest on the amount due. After a bench trial in 2014, the district court found that A&C and Clint personally breached a contract with Fitterer for the sale of goods. The court ordered A&C and Clint to pay Fitterer $114,398, which included unpaid principal and interest calculated at a rate of ten percent per year from June 11, 2007 to November 30, 2014. The court also ordered A&C and Clint to pay $526 per month in prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a valid, binding contract existed between A&C and Fitterer for the sale of goods; (2) Fitterer was entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount due under the contract; and (3) as conceded on appeal by Fitterer, Clint should be dismissed as a defendant in this case. View "Fitterer v. Mullin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony sexual assault. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years imprisonment with twenty years suspended for the sexual abuse charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) when it permitted Defendant’s sister to testify about Defendant’s abuse of her when she was a child; (2) when it limited the defense examination of witnesses regarding specific instances of conduct; and (3) when it admitted into evidence testimony from the State’s expert witness, a forensic interview for a child protection team. View "State v. Given" on Justia Law

In 1996, Donna Metcalf transferred a forty-acre parcel of land to Richard Thieltges by warranty deed. The deed contained certain covenants, restrictions, conditions and charges (“Restrictions”). In 2000, Thieltges transferred the full parcel to Terrance and Laurie Scott by warranty deed. In 2013, the Scotts filed a complaint asking the district court to invalidate the Restrictions and seeking permission to subdivide their property. The Lee and Donna Metcalf Charitable Trust filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce the Restrictions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trust, concluding that the Restrictions were enforceable against the Scotts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the Restrictions could be enforced by the Trust against the Scotts. View "Scotts v. Metcalf Charitable Trust" on Justia Law

After a trial, the district court entered a dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Gordon and Nancy Clark. Gordon appealed, challenging the district court’s valuation and distribution of the marital estate. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s valuation of the ranch and the structure of its equalization payment order, holding that the court acted within its discretion to order an up-front equalization payment and that the court’s valuation was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) reversed the final property distribution, as the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider tax liabilities associated with selling the ranch. Remanded for further consideration of such tax liabilities and entry of an amended property distribution order. View "In re Marriage of Clark" on Justia Law