Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After initiating a traffic stop of the vehicle Appellant was driving, the deputy administered a preliminary breath test to Appellant, which reported an elevated blood alcohol concentration. Appellant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Because Appellant refused to take a breath test, his driver’s license was seized. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to have his license reinstated. The trial court concluded that Appellant was properly arrested for DUI and denied his petition for reinstatement of his driver’s license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that the deputy had reasonable grounds to stop Appellant’s vehicle; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the State was not estopped from suspending Appellant’s license because of a statement made by the arresting officer regarding the consequences of Appellant providing a breath sample; and (3) Appellant’s refusal to submit to the blood test constituted a refusal within the meaning of Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-402 because Appellant failed to establish that he suffered from a psychological fear of needles rendering him physically unable to perform the test. View "Kummerfeldt v. State" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a son. Plaintiffs in this case were the child’s paternal grandparents (“Grandparents”). When Mother and Father separated, the child began living with Mother. Grandparents filed a petition under Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 seeking unsupervised visits with their grandson. Mother objected to any additional visitation beyond the contact she had provided. The district court granted Mother’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mother was a fit parent and that Grandparents needed to establish “substantially more” to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of supporting Mother’s wishes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 in denying Grandparents’ petition for extended contact with their grandson. View "Glueckert v. Glueckert" on Justia Law

For tax year 2004, the State of Montana, Department of Revenue (DOR) centrally assessed property owned by Omimex Canada Ltd. and classified it under class nine. Omimex contested the assessment, claiming that it did not operate a “single and continuous property,” and therefore, its properties should be locally assessed and subject to the lower tax rate under class eight. The district judge entered an order in 2007 finding that Omimex’s properties operated as a single and continuous property. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Omimex’s property was not subject to classification under class nine, regardless of whether it was centrally assessed. For the tax year 2011, DOR again centrally assessed Omimex’s property and classified it under class nine. Ommimex filed a declaratory action arguing that it did not operate a single and continuous property. The district court granted partial summary judgment for DOR, concluding that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred Omimex from relitigating the issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court erred when it concluded that the district court’s 2007 finding precluded Omimex from litigating the issue of whether it operated a single and continuous property because Omimex demonstrated the existence of genuine questions of material fact regarding whether the issue in the current litigation was identical to the issue in the 2007 litigation. View "Omimex Canada, Ltd. v. State Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought a thirty-year residential financing loan from the predecessor to U.S. Bank in the amount of $300,000. Three years later, Plaintiff filed suit against U.S. Bank alleging that the Bank committed fraud by issuing, without notice, an eighteen-month, $300,000 commercial loan, rather than the thirty-year residential property loan for which she applied. A jury ultimately found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. The district court confirmed the punitive damages award and ordered that post-judgment interest would accrue from the of its decision. The Bank appealed, and Plaintiff cross-appealed. The Supreme court affirmed the direct appeal and reversed the cross-appeal, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding law witness testimony and Plaintiff’s medical records; (2) correctly concluded that the Bank committed actual fraud; (3) did not err in holding U.S. Bank liable for punitive damages arising out of Heritage Bank’s pre-merger conduct; (4) did not err in upholding the jury’s award of punitive damages; but (5) erred by ordering accrual of post-judgment interest from the date of its decision. View "McCulley v. U.S. Bank of Montana" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-102. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search of her purse by police officers, arguing that the tip the officers received failed to establish particularized suspicion and that her consent to search was involuntary, and therefore, the seizure and search were illegal. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err by concluding that the search of Defendant’s baggage was lawfully executed based upon Defendant’s voluntary consent; and (2) erred in its written judgment by altering Defendant’s sentence from its oral pronouncement. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of assault on a peace officer or judicial officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove mental state as to every element of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the given instruction’s failure to require that the jury find Defendant had acted purposely or knowingly with regard to the victims’ identity as police officers relieved the State’s burden to prove Defendant’s awareness that the deputies were in fact peace officers, and the error clearly prejudiced Defendant. View "State v. Carnes" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Defendant appealed, challenging the admission of a report from the State Forensic Science Division. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the crime lab report into evidence and in concluding that the report was supported by proper foundation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the justice court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to exclude the crime lab report; and (2) Defendant’s additional argument was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Schwarzmeier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief and cruelty to animals for fatally shooting a family dog.The district court ordered that Defendant to pay the entire $9,357 claimed by the family in restitution. The amount included medical expenses the family members sustained due to the stress of losing the dog and lost wages they incurred as a result of leaving work to cooperate in the prosecution of the offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court (1) erred by ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victims for lost wages; (2) did not err by ordering Defendant to pay restitution for one victim’s medical bills; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to produce records. View "State v. Barrick" on Justia Law

Valerie Addis left her position as supervisor of food services with the Missoula County Public Schools (Schools) after the Schools conducted an investigation of Addis into whether she had engaged in fraudulent or illegal financial transactions. Certain media organizations (Respondents) requested that the Schools release documents related to Addis’ termination. The Schools, in order to avoid being sued by either the media outlets or Addis, commenced the present action in district court seeking an in camera review of the Addis documents and a determination as to whether they should be released. After conducting an in camera examination of the Schools’ records, the district court concluded (1) Addis had a right of privacy in some of the documents and they, therefore, should not be released; but (2) six documents relating to misuse of public money, misuse of public facilities, and careless management practices should be released. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the six disputed documents should be released. View "Missoula County Pub. Schs. v. Addis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for failure to register as a securities salesperson, failure to register a security, and fraudulent practices, all felonies. The district court sentenced him to three concurrent ten-year sentences with all but ninety days suspended, plus restitution and court costs. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for fraudulent practices and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the term “security” was adequately defined for the jury; (2) the State provided sufficient evidence to prove Defendant sold a security; (3) the district court correctly instructed the jury in accordance with the statutory definition of “willfully”; (4) sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s finding that Defendant had the requisite mental state to violate the Securities Act, and because Defendant was not convicted of a strict liability offense, his ten-year sentence did not violate his due process rights; (5) the district court erred by instructing the jury that the willful omission of a prospectus constituted fraudulent practices; and (6) Defendant was properly sentenced. Remanded for a new trial on the fraudulent practices charge. View "State v. Himes" on Justia Law