Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Oliver Arlington, who worked for Miller’s Trucking for one year, claimed he was owed wages in accordance with a verbal employment agreement and was also owed unpaid overtime wages. On remand, a hearing officer with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry Hearings Bureau denied Arlington’s claims. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s finding that Arlington and Miller’s Trucking did not have an oral employment agreement guaranteeing over $60,000 per year in wages; (2) the hearing officer’s conclusions of law were contrary to applicable wage and hour law; (3) the hearing officer’s factual findings were clearly erroneous; and (4) the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion when he refused to admit documents pertaining to regulatory violations by Miller’s Trucking. View "Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Bozeman dismissed Robert Chase, a building inspector, and Chase claimed that the dismissal was improper. The Montana Public Employees’ Association (MPEA) gave notice to the City Manager of its decision to arbitrate Chase’s grievance according to the grievance procedure but failed to timely request a list of potential arbitrators from the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals. More than one year after the dispute arose, MPEA contacted the City to proceed with arbitration. The City declined to cooperate. More than four years after the dispute first arose, MPEA filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the City must participate in arbitration. The City asserted a counterclaim for declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment and issued declaratory relief to the City, concluding that Chase’s grievance did not survive MPEA’s failure to follow the agreement’s time limits and that MPEA waived any right to arbitrate through its four-year delay. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) whether a dispute remains arbitrable despite the failure to follow the an arbitration agreement’s procedures, including time limits, is a question of procedural arbitrability that is for an arbitrator and not for a court to decide; and (2) the City’s waiver argument was an issue for an arbitrator to decide. View "Mont. Pub. Employees Ass’n v. City of Bozeman" on Justia Law

Dennis Lawlor died the day after executing a will (“Will”). Dennis was survived by three of his siblings, Antoinette, Mary, and John Lawlor. An additional sibling predeceased Dennis, but that sibling’s daughter, Audrey, and grandson, John Stoican, survived Dennis. The Will devised all of Dennis’ estate to Antoinette and Mary. Audrey and John Stoican filed a complaint contesting the Will. Antoinette’s children, Mark and John Wagner, opposed the complaint and moved to dismiss the will contest. Audrey and John Stoican then filed a motion asking the court to remove Mark as personal representative and John Wagner as the Estate’s attorney. The district court decided that Audrey and John Stoican lacked standing to contest the will or to seek the removal of the personal representative. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred when it determined that Audrey lacked standing to contest the Will on the basis of its determination that Audrey would not succeed to the Estate if it passed by intestacy; and (2) did not err in deciding that Audrey was not a “person interested in the estate” with standing to petition for removal of a personal representative for cause. View "Stoican v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and elder abuse for his conduct during one incident. Defendant filed a pretrial motion requesting that the court order the State to elect between prosecuting him for either aggravated assault or elder abuse, arguing that his federal double jeopardy protections and the protections of Montana’s “multiple charges” statute would be violated if he were prosecuted for both offenses. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the elder abuse statute was neither a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault nor a specific instance of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding (1) Defendant may be prosecuted for more than one offense arising out of the same transaction; and (2) Defendant’s double jeopardy claim and reliance on the protections of the multiple charges statute were premature. View "State v. Violette" on Justia Law

This action concerned the Will of Dennis Lawlor, who died in 2012. Audrey and John Stoican filed a complaint contesting the Will, claiming, inter alia, that Dennis lacked testamentary capacity at the time the Will was executed and that he was subject to undue influence. The Stoicans then moved to remove the personal representative and the Estate’s attorneys, alleging conflicts of interest. The district court concluded that the Stoicans lacked standing to contest the Will or to petition for the removal of the personal representative or the Estate’s attorney. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred when it determined that Audrey would not succeed to the Estate if the Estate passed by intestacy, and for this reason, the court erred when it determined that Audrey lacked standing to contest the Will; and (2) did not err when it determined that Audrey lacked standing to petition for the removal of the personal representative for cause. View "Stoican v. Wagner" on Justia Law

In the process of hiring a new city manager, the City Commission of the City of Polson held a closed executive session with the description, “Personnel-meet with interview panels and deliberate on selection of city manager.” The Commission later unanimously voted to approve a city manager employment contract with Mark Shrives. Citizens for Open Government brought suit, contending that the executive session violated Citizens’ right to participate under the Montana Constitution and Montana statutory law. The district court ruled in favor of the City on the merits of Citizens’ claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not comply with the open meeting laws when it closed its executive session without first determining that the demands of individual privacy clearly exceeded the merits of public disclosure; but (2) because the Commission did not finalize its hiring decision until it held two additional open public meetings, the district court did not err in declining to void the Commission’s decision to present Shrives with an offer letter. View "Citizens for Open Gov’t., Inc. v. City of Polson" on Justia Law

Missoula County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) deputies accompanied Christine Robutka to a rural property to assist with a civil standby while Robutka removed her belongings from the property. Robutka had been sharing a residence on the property with two men, including Defendant. While assisting with the civil standby, the deputies observed marijuana plants at the property. Robutka subsequently told detectives that Defendant was growing marijuana at the property. Thereafter, MCSD deputies obtained a warrant to search the property and executed the search, which resulted in the seizure of multiple adult marijuana plants. Defendant was charged with cultivating marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the civil standby on the search. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant eventually pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and his resulting conviction, holding that the deputies did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights when they entered the driveway to conduct the civil standby, and the plain view observation of marijuana plants by MCSD deputies provided probable cause for the search warrant. View "State v. Urziceanu" on Justia Law

Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE) insured Defendant’s home in Clancy, Montana. When Defendant’s home was broken into and robbed, Defendant made a claim under her homeowner’s policy. FIE paid Defendant $22,602, representing property damage and actual cash value for the items Defendant claimed were stolen from the home. Defendant then submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $23,102 for personal property she asserted she had replaced. When FIE concluded that the receipts Defendant provided to substantiate her replacement claims were fraudulent, FIE made a referral for criminal charges. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to felony insurance fraud and theft. The district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to FIE in the amount of $22,602. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay restitution to FIE even where Defendant’s initial claim was legitimate because Defendant’s subsequent fraudulent replacement value claim voided her policy, and FIE suffered a pecuniary loss in the amount of Defendant’s initial claim. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were smoking structures built by the owners and operators of two casinos in Great Falls (“Casino Owners”). After the Cascade City-County Board of Health (Board) commenced enforcement steps against the Casino Owners under the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA), the Casino Owners initiated an action against the Board seeking a declaration that their smoking structures were in compliance with the MCIAA. The district court granted summary judgment to the Casino Owners and awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Board, holding (1) the MCIAA clearly delineates casinos on the statute’s list of public places wherein smoking is prohibited, and therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the smoking structures at issue were not subject to the smoking prohibition of the MCIAA; (2) the Casino Owners failed to establish that the Board was equitably estopped from enforcing the MCIAA; and (3) the district court improperly awarded the Casino Owners attorney fees. View "MC, Inc. v. Cascade City-County Bd. of Health" on Justia Law

In 2012, M.C. was born to Mother and Father, who were unmarried. After Mother told Father that she intended to live in Ohio with M.C., Father petitioned the district court for establishment of a parenting plan, proposing that he should become M.C.’s primary caregiver. Mother proposed a parenting plan that would allow her to reside in Ohio as M.C.’s primary caregiver. After a hearing, the district court concluded that if Mother chose to live in Montana, the parties would be directed to submit parenting plans naming Mother as M.C.’s primary caregiver, and that if Mother chose to live in Ohio, the parties would be directed to submit proposed parenting plans naming Father as M.C.’s primary caregiver. The Supreme Court affirmed the parenting plan, holding that the district court did not violate Mother’s fundamental right to travel by ordering that M.C. should reside in Montana. View "In re Parenting of M.C." on Justia Law