Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff injured his left knee when he stepped into his truck. Plaintiff was insured by an automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm that provided automobile medical payments (med pay) coverage. Plaintiff’s health insurer paid nearly all of Plaintiff’s medical bills, but Plaintiff sought from State Farm benefits pursuant to his med pay coverage. State Farm paid the $25.02 that was unpaid at that time and refused to pay further benefits. Plaintiff sued State Farm, alleging breach of the insurance contract for State Farm’s failure to pay the entirety of his medical expenses. The district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that State Farm was not required to pay Plaintiff’s medical expenses pursuant to his med pay coverage that were previously paid by Plaintiff’s health insurer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the plain language of the policy, there was no limitation preventing Plaintiff from receiving a duplicate payment for medical expenses under separately purchased, uncoordinated insurance policies. View "Winter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This matter comprised two joined cases, both involving claims to water diverted from the South Fork of Dupuyer Creek in Two Medicine River Basin, into Gansman Coulee, for irrigation in the Teton River Basin. Two sets of claimants (“Duncan” and “Skelton”) filed statements of claim for existing rights. A canal and reservoir company (“Pondera”) appeared in the adjudication of Duncan’s and Skelton’s claims. The Montana Water Court amended the Water Master’s Report and adopted it as amended. Duncan and Skelton appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Chief Water Judge properly admitted historical documents prepared by Pondera in anticipation of litigation under the ancient document exception to the hearsay rule; (2) the Chief Water Judge correctly rejected the Master’s findings regarding certain variables used to determine the historical capacity of a flume on the Thomas ditch; (3) the Chief Water Judge correctly determined that portions of the claimants’ water rights had been abandoned or never perfected; and (4) the Chief Water Judge correctly adopted the Master’s conclusion that the claimants did not acquire any water rights by adverse possession. View "Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Florian Cortese after Plaintiff’s small intestine was perforated during a procedure performed by Cortese. The trial court denied Cortese’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also denied Cortese’s motions for summary judgment and to preclude Plaintiff from presenting unpleaded claims at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that it had jurisdiction to consider arguments Plaintiff had not specifically presented to the Montana Medical Legal Panel; and (2) the Court should not suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to consider the district court’s denial of Cortes’s remaining motions.View "Pickett v. Cortese" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he made to the police. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing. After a hearing on remand, the district court suppressed Defendant’s statements to the police on the grounds that the statements were made involuntarily and granted Defendant a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant’s statements were made involuntarily and in ordering a new trial.View "State v. OldHorn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly intentionally submerging his young son in scalding water. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance based on an absent witness, as (1) Defendant met the diligence requirement contained in Mont. Code Ann. 46-13-202, (2) the interests of justice and Defendant’s right to a fair trial necessitated the grant of his motion for a continuance in order to allow the witness at issue to testify, and (3) the witness intended to testify.View "State v. Gleed" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. Attorney James Goetz attempted to help Appellant with his parole eligibility claim. Displeased with Goetz's assistance, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz. Appellant was assisted by attorneys Allan Baris and Todd Stubbs in this action. In 2010, Appellant filed a complaint against Goetz, Baris, and Stubbs, asserting claims related to the alleged withholding of discovery in Appellant’s previous action against Goetz. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by denying Appellant’s motion for a summary judgment hearing; and (2) by denying Appellant’s motion to stay judgment pending completion of discovery.View "Miller v. Goetz" on Justia Law

After county animal control officers responded to a complaint that three horses were being confined in a trailer without adequate food or water, Defendant was charged and found guilty of three misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals. Defendant was sentenced to three years in a detention facility and ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution to animal control for the care of the horses. The horses were forfeited to the county. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; and (2) the district court did not err by ordering the forfeited horses to be either sold or adopted in the county’s discretion. View "State v. Beaudet" on Justia Law

This controversy arose from cyber-blog exchanges between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff requested and was granted a temporary order of protection (TOP) against Defendant. The district court affirmed the municipal court’s order granting the TOP, extended the TOP, and sanctioned Defendant as a vexatious litigant through imposing a pre-filing order. The Supreme Court affirmed but struck one condition of the district court’s order, holding that the district court (1) not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP and remanding to the municipal court for further proceedings; (2) did not err by permanently enjoining Defendant from filing any new pleadings without prior district court approval; but (3) abused its discretion in requiring Defendant to post a $50,000 bond in the event Defendant filed an action or proceeding against a judge or court employee.View "Boushie v. Windsor" on Justia Law

The Judicial Standards Commission filed a formal complaint against District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh after Baugh made inappropriate public remarks about the young victim of a sexual offense and imposed an unlawful sentence on the defendant. Judge Baugh admitted that he violated Montana’s Code of Judicial Conduct and consented to judicial discipline by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Baugh’s actions warranted his suspension without pay for thirty-one days commencing on December 1, 2014. Because Judge Baugh did not consent to a suspension, and because the Commission did not recommend suspension, the Court allowed Judge Baugh fifteen days to withdraw his consent to discipline. View "In re Judge Baugh" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, holding (1) counsel was not ineffective for failing to request dismissal of the charges against Defendant for the State’s alleged destruction of evidence or a jury instruction regarding the State’s failure to collect and preserve the subject evidence; and (2) counsel did not act unreasonably when he withdrew a proposed jury instruction on sexual assault as a lesser included offense.View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law