Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Glacier County taxpayers, alleged that the County and its Commissioners unlawfully made expenditures or disbursements of public funds or incurred obligations in excess of total appropriations, violating Montana law. The case originated from a 2015 lawsuit by Plaintiff Elaine Mitchell, who claimed the County and State failed to comply with the Single Audit Act and the Local Government Budget Act. An independent audit revealed deficit balances in many county funds, prompting the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including declarations of non-compliance with accounting standards and laws ensuring government financial accountability.The Ninth Judicial District Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the issue of the County's improper liquidation of a tax protest fund. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify Count II as a class action, which the District Court granted, defining the class as property taxpayers of Glacier County who paid taxes from 2012 to 2020. The County appealed the class certification order and the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The Court held that Plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged concrete economic injuries from the County's actions, such as increased tax obligations and loss of county services. The Court also found that the class met the prerequisites for certification under M. R. Civ. P. 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. The Court ruled that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual questions, making a class action the superior method for adjudicating the controversy. The class certification was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gottlob v. DesRosier" on Justia Law

Nicholas Guthneck was hired by Qlarant Integrity Solutions, LLC, a Maryland company working on federally funded contracts, as a health fraud investigator in September 2020. He worked remotely from Montana. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 in September 2021, mandating that federal contractors ensure their employees were vaccinated against COVID-19. Qlarant implemented a vaccination policy in October 2021, requiring employees to submit proof of vaccination by November 24, 2021. Guthneck refused to disclose his vaccination status, citing Montana law (House Bill 702, codified as § 49-2-312, MCA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on vaccination status. Consequently, Qlarant terminated his employment on November 4, 2021.Guthneck filed a discrimination complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB), which found reasonable cause to support his claim. The case was set for a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Qlarant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Executive Order 14042 preempted Montana law. The OAH hearing officer agreed and dismissed the complaint. Guthneck appealed to the Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC), which vacated the dismissal, stating that the hearing officer lacked authority to determine preemption.Qlarant sought judicial review in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. The District Court reversed the HRC's decision, ruling that the hearing officer had the authority to determine preemption and correctly found that Executive Order 14042 preempted § 49-2-312, MCA. Guthneck appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the OAH hearing officer had the authority to determine whether Executive Order 14042 preempted Montana law, as it involved statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional question. The Court also held that Executive Order 14042 expressly preempted § 49-2-312, MCA, for federal contractors like Qlarant during the relevant period. Thus, Qlarant was required to comply with the federal mandate, and Guthneck's termination for refusing to disclose his vaccination status was lawful. View "Qlarant v Guthneck" on Justia Law

On September 10, 2022, a Montana Highway Patrol Trooper stopped Kyler Austin Clinkenbeard for speeding. The Trooper detected alcohol on Clinkenbeard’s breath, and Clinkenbeard admitted to drinking three beers. He failed field sobriety tests, and a preliminary breath test showed a .130 blood alcohol concentration. Clinkenbeard was arrested and refused a blood test, prompting the Trooper to obtain a search warrant. The blood test revealed a .101 blood alcohol concentration. Clinkenbeard was charged with DUI (first offense) and speeding.Clinkenbeard filed a motion to suppress the blood test results and dismiss the charges in Ravalli County Justice Court, arguing a Brady violation, outrageous government conduct, illegal blood draw location, and that the State was precluded from seeking a blood test warrant for first-time DUI suspects. The Justice Court denied the motion, and Clinkenbeard pleaded guilty to both charges, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motion denial. The District Court also denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. Clinkenbeard argued that the implied consent statute (§ 61-8-1016(4)(a), MCA) prohibited obtaining a search warrant for a blood test for first-time DUI offenders. The Court held that subsection (5) of the same statute allows for obtaining a search warrant, stating that the implied consent statute does not apply to tests performed pursuant to a search warrant. The Court affirmed the District Court’s decision, allowing the use of the blood test obtained through the search warrant. View "State v. Clinkenbeard" on Justia Law

Leroy Charles was initially charged with aggravated assault, criminal endangerment, and aggravated kidnapping. He pled guilty to an amended charge of criminal endangerment in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges. He was sentenced to eight years with four suspended in the Department of Corrections (DOC) and granted 189 days of credit for time served. Charles began the suspended portion of his sentence on February 14, 2021, and complied with supervision requirements for over a year. However, on October 21, 2022, the DOC filed a report of violation (ROV) accusing him of multiple compliance violations, including methamphetamine use and failure to report for drug testing.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, revoked Charles's suspended sentence and imposed a four-year sentence, all suspended, to the DOC. The court granted 487 days of credit for street time but denied his request for additional credit for the elapsed time between the filing of the ROV and the dispositional hearing on May 3, 2023. Charles appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court found that Charles was entitled to credit for the elapsed time from December 1, 2022, to May 3, 2023, as there were no recorded violations during this period, and he had complied with probation requirements. The court also determined that Charles should receive credit for any time he was incarcerated from November 9, 2022, to November 30, 2022, and from December 19, 2022, to May 3, 2023. Additionally, the court confirmed that Charles was entitled to street time credit from February 14, 2021, to June 6, 2022.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to amend its judgment to include the correct calculations for elapsed time, time spent incarcerated, and street time credit. View "State v. Charles" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who were never married, have one child together, A.H.S., born in February 2018 in San Diego, California. The mother is from Brazil, and both she and the child are dual citizens of Brazil and the United States. The family moved to Montana in April 2020. In September 2022, the mother took the child to California without the father's consent, cutting off contact. The father filed a Verified Petition for Parenting Plan and a Motion for Ex Parte Interim Parenting Plan in Montana, which was granted, requiring the mother to return the child to Montana and surrender the child's passports.The mother attempted to get California to exercise jurisdiction by filing for a domestic violence restraining order. A UCCJEA conference was held between the California and Montana courts, resulting in the California court declining to exercise jurisdiction. The mother avoided service for several months but eventually returned the child to Montana in June 2023. The Montana District Court held hearings and issued a Final Parenting Plan in May 2024, providing for a 50/50 alternating week parenting schedule and temporarily limiting the child's travel outside Montana.The mother appealed the District Court's decisions. The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's rulings. The court held that the District Court correctly determined it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and Montana law, as no other state had jurisdiction. The court also found that the temporary travel restriction was reasonable to ensure the child's stability and continuity of care. Finally, the court concluded that the District Court properly considered the best interest factors under Montana law, including evidence of domestic violence, and did not err in its parenting plan decision. View "In re Parenting of A.H.S." on Justia Law

Bradley Hillious was charged with deliberate homicide for the death of his wife, Amanda, who was found unresponsive at the bottom of a staircase and later died from strangulation and blunt-force injuries. Prior to trial, Hillious sought to exclude certain statements Amanda made before her death, including a petition for a temporary order of protection (TOP) and text messages to a coworker. The District Court denied the motion to exclude the TOP petition and deferred ruling on the text messages until trial.The Eleventh Judicial District Court in Flathead County convicted Hillious of deliberate homicide. Hillious filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury panel was improperly assembled because the clerk did not certify non-responding jurors to the sheriff for personal service, as required by Montana law. The District Court denied the motion, finding that the clerk's method of jury selection did not undermine the randomness or objectivity of the process.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Court held that the clerk's failure to certify non-responding jurors for personal service was a technical violation that did not affect the randomness or objectivity of the jury selection process. The Court also found that Hillious's motion for a new trial was untimely and that he failed to show good cause for the delay. Additionally, the Court held that the admission of the TOP petition violated Hillious's Confrontation Clause rights but concluded that the error was harmless given the other evidence presented at trial. View "State v. Hillious" on Justia Law

Loren Dean Raver was pulled over while driving a stolen Ford F-150 and subsequently arrested. The truck's owner, Stacie Grandpre, confirmed that she did not know Raver and had not given him permission to drive her truck. Upon searching the vehicle, deputies found syringes, a spoon with a crystalline substance, and stolen copper wire and tools. Raver was charged with multiple counts, including felony theft and misdemeanors. He entered a no contest plea for felony theft and misdemeanor theft of the copper wire, and the other charges were dropped.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held a sentencing hearing where the State requested $17,470.36 in restitution for Grandpre's losses, including vehicle damage, hunting gear, car rentals, and cleaning costs. The State presented testimony from a State Farm Insurance claims specialist, who attributed the damages to the theft based on Grandpre's statements and the investigation. Raver, a mechanic, contested the amount, claiming the truck had no issues during his possession and proposed a lower restitution amount.The District Court ordered the full restitution amount, finding a reasonable connection between the damage and Raver's theft. The court found the State's evidence credible and Raver's testimony not credible. Raver appealed, arguing insufficient causation and challenging the inclusion of the bumper replacement cost.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that the evidence presented, including the State Farm investigation and Grandpre's statements, supported the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also rejected Raver's argument regarding the bumper, as there was insufficient evidence to refute the State Farm conclusion. View "State v. Raver" on Justia Law

Charlie’s Win, LLC, a property owner within the Gallatin West Ranch Subdivision, filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that the restrictive covenants governing the subdivision had expired. The original Declaration of Protective Covenants, recorded in 1992, stated that the covenants would be in effect for 25 years and could be extended by a two-thirds majority vote of the owners. In 2015, Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners’ Association attempted to adopt a Fourth Amended Declaration, which included changes such as allowing metal roofs and backyard chicken coops. Of the 24 owners, 15 voted in favor, one voted against, and eight abstained.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granted summary judgment in favor of Charlie’s Win, concluding that the covenants had expired on October 22, 2017, as the Fourth Amended Declaration did not receive the required two-thirds majority vote of all owners. Gallatin West appealed, arguing that the 2015 vote either properly adopted the Fourth Amended Declaration, modified the covenants, or that the covenants were ambiguous and required an analysis of the parties' conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that the plain language of the covenants required a two-thirds majority vote of all owners to extend the covenants, which was not achieved in the 2015 vote. The Court rejected Gallatin West’s arguments, stating that the renewal and modification clauses had different voting standards and that the covenants were not ambiguous. Consequently, the Third Amended Declaration expired by its own terms, and Gallatin West could not enforce the Fourth Amended Declaration against Charlie’s Win. View "Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Association" on Justia Law

Thomas Joseph Brennan was charged with four counts of felony sexual assault and one count of felony sexual abuse of children. His 14-year-old stepdaughter, A.H., disclosed that Brennan habitually entered her bedroom to watch her change clothes and touched her inappropriately. A.H. testified that Brennan's behavior became intrusive and invasive, including "snuggling" with her in bed and touching her inappropriately. A.H.'s grandmother and mother provided corroborating testimony. Brennan denied the allegations but admitted to some of the physical contact described by A.H.The jury found Brennan not guilty of the four counts of sexual assault but guilty of the one count of sexual abuse of children. Brennan moved for a new trial, arguing that the conduct established at trial did not constitute sexual abuse of children under the relevant statute. The District Court agreed, finding insufficient evidence to uphold the jury's verdict and granted Brennan's motion for a new trial, dismissing the conviction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The court held that Brennan's conduct of watching A.H. change clothes constituted a "lewd exhibition" and a "depiction" of a child in a state of partial undress for the purpose of his own sexual gratification or to humiliate A.H. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and instructed the District Court to reinstate Brennan's conviction for sexual abuse of children. View "State v. Brennan" on Justia Law

David L. Murphy Properties, LLC and John Schaffer own property adjacent to Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC on Flathead Lake. Painted Rocks constructed a dock after obtaining a permit from Lake County. Murphy Properties claimed the dock violated the Lakeshore Protection Act, interfered with their prescriptive easement, and constituted a nuisance.The Twentieth Judicial District Court dismissed Murphy Properties' Lakeshore Protection Act claim against Lake County and granted summary judgment in favor of Painted Rocks on all claims. The court found that the dock did not interfere with navigation or lawful recreation under the Act, as Murphy Properties could still access the cove with smaller watercraft. The court also ruled that Murphy Properties could not establish a prescriptive easement because their use of the cove was not exclusive, given the public's right to use the waters. Additionally, the court dismissed the nuisance claim, as it was contingent on the alleged violation of the Lakeshore Protection Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's rulings. The court held that the Lakeshore Protection Act does not mandate denial of a permit if a project impacts navigation or recreation, but rather favors issuance if it does not. The court agreed that Murphy Properties' use of the cove was not exclusive and thus could not support a prescriptive easement. The court also upheld the dismissal of the nuisance claim, as it was based on the failed Lakeshore Protection Act claim. The judgment in favor of Lake County and Painted Rocks was affirmed. View "David L. Murphy Properties, LLC v. Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC" on Justia Law