Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of felony aggravated assault related to injuries incurred by his five-month-old son. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it concluded that Defendant had waived his right to a jury trial; (2) Defendant failed to convince the Court that plain error review was warranted as to Defendant’s claim that his absence from the deposition of a State witness violated his right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings; and (3) the district court did not commit reversible error in rendering its verdict that Defendant was guilty of aggravated assault.View "State v. Reim" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Child was removed from her parents’ care and placed into protective custody after her mother was arrested for possessing dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. Thereafter, Child was adjudicated a youth in need of care and placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Public Health and Human Services. The Department then sought permanent legal custody and the termination of the parental rights of both parents. At a summary judgment hearing, the district court ordered Child’s parental rights terminated and awarded the Department permanent legal custody of Child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination proceedings complied with statutory requirements for proceedings involving an Indian child. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

Robert Mead died in 2011, survived by his daughters, Roberta Jean Mead and Bobbi Jo Harr. Roberta initiated intestate proceedings, but Bobbi Jo petitioned for formal probate of Robert’s purported will. Roberta and Bobbi Jo filed cross-motions for summary judgment about the will’s validity and enforceability. The district court concluded that the will was valid and enforceable and granted judgment in favor of Bobbi Jo. Roberta appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that the will was valid and enforceable because it was properly executed and not the result of undue influence. View "In re Estate of Mead" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The district court sentenced Petitioner to thirty years imprisonment, with twenty years suspended. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application to the Sentence Review Division for sentence review. During a hearing, Petitioner’s counsel advocated for a more onerous sentence than the district court had originally imposed. After the hearing had concluded, Petitioner’s counsel asked that Petitioner be permitted to withdraw his application, leaving his original sentence intact. The Division declined Petitioner’s request to withdraw his application and ultimately entered an order increasing Petitioner’s sentence to thirty years imprisonment, with ten years suspended. The district court amended the previous judgment and resentenced Petitioner in accordance with the Division’s decision. Petitioner sought relief from the Division’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Division and the amended judgment of the district court and remanded with directions to reinstate the sentence as originally imposed, holding that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the proceeding before the Division fundamentally unfair. View "Avery v. Batista" on Justia Law

After executing her last will and testament in Montana, Laura Jean Kelly, who neither married nor had children, died at age sixty-two. Laura’s siblings petitioned the district court for a determination that Laura’s interest in a family partnership was not part of her residuary estate. The district court concluded that Laura’s interest in the family partnership was a non-probate asset and did not constitute part of the residue of Laura’s estate. As such, Laura’s partnership interest passed to Laura’s siblings, her “heirs-at-law.” Laura’s niece appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the term “heirs,” its application of Montana law, and its conclusions of law. View "In re Estate of Kelly" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition for the involuntary commitment of N.A. After a hearing on the State’s commitment petition, the district court orally announced its findings that N.A. had a mental disorder requiring a community commitment and ordered that N.A. be committed to a community program for ninety days. N.A. appealed, arguing that the district court failed to follow the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-119(1) in obtaining a waiver of his procedural rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court violated N.A.’s statutory and due process rights when it issued a commitment order without obtaining from N.A. and intentional and knowing waiver of his procedural rights in accordance with section 53-21-119(1) and supporting case law. View "In re N.A." on Justia Law

Mines Management, Inc., Newhi, Inc., and Montanore Minerals Corp. (collectively, MMC) sued Defendants, challenging the validity of Defendants’ unpatented mining claims and asserting several tort claims. The district court ruled on several motions and granted injunctive relief for one defendant. MMC appealed. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction, concluding that the lower court had not made sufficient findings to support the granting of the injunction and permit appellate review. MMC then filed a motion for substitution of judge pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804(12). The district court ruled that substitution was unavailable at this stage in the proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion because, upon remand, section 3-1-804(12) did not provide MMC an opportunity to request a substitution of judge. View "Mines Mgmt., Inc. v. Fus" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the owner and president of a Montana corporation, stopped paying himself a salary but continued working. Petitioner applied for and received unemployment benefits but reported to the State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) that he worked zero hours per week. When DLI discovered that Petitioner worked fifty hours a week, DLI determined that Petitioner had wrongfully received benefits. DLI ordered Petitioner to repay the overpaid benefits and imposed an administrative penalty. The district court reversed in part, concluding that when Petitioner drew no salary he did not need to report the hours he worked and was eligible to receive benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a corporate officer working full-time without pay for his corporation is engaged in employment under Montana’s Unemployment Insurance Law and is required to report his hours of work when seeking unemployment benefits; and (2) DLI correctly imposed a penalty on Petitioner for misrepresenting the amount of hours he worked. View "Sayler v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., Ins. Div." on Justia Law

All but one of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Florida. Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging that Defendants had procured a wire transfer from Plaintiff to a public adjusting company under false pretenses and with the intent to defraud him. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that general personal jurisdiction did not exist because Defendants’ contacts with Montana were neither continuous nor systematic and that specific personal jurisdiction did not exist because all of the substantial activity underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Florida. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction because Defendants formed no “jurisdictionally relevant contacts” with Montana, and Plaintiff’s single act of authorizing his local bank in Montana to wire funds to the public adjusting company was insufficient to establish that his action accrued in Montana for purposes of Mont. R. Civ. P. 4(b)(1)(B). View "Tackett v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Based on advice from a licensed securities salesperson registered with Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., two ranching organizations and a family farmer (collectively, Appellants) invested in certain properties that eventually stopped paying or paid at a greatly reduced rate. Appellants filed separate complaints against Royal Alliance, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims. Royal Alliance moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were subject to the three-year tort statute of limitations, and it had not been named in any of the complaints until three and a half years after the injuries became known. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Royal Alliance. On appeal, Appellants claimed that the facts constituting their claims against Royal Alliance were concealed or self-concealing such that they could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts constituting Appellants’ claims against Royal Alliance could have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence, and therefore, the three-year statute of limitations was not tolled. View "Thieltges v. Royal Alliance Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law