Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, in anticipation of Revett Silver Company and RC Resources, Inc. (collectively, "Revett") seeking approval for mine-related construction under a general permit, filed this action against the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) seeking a declaratory judgment that use of general permits to approve stormwater runoff from the Rock Creek Mine would violate Mont. Admin. R. 17.30.1341(4)(e) because Rock Creek is an area of "unique ecological significance" based on considerations of impacts on fishery resource and local conditions at proposed discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs and declared the general permit void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DEQ's approval of the use of the general permit to allow storm water discharges was arbitrary and capricious because DEQ failed to consider the relevant factors set forth in the law prior to its decision, and as a result, committed a clear error of judgment. View "Clark Fork Coalition v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

After a bench trial in justice court, Defendant was convicted for DUI per se. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, Defendant moved the justice court to dismiss the charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, arguing that the margin of error in the Intoxilyzer breath test's result created reasonable doubt that Defendant's alcohol concentration had, in fact, reached the statutorily prohibited level. The district court affirmed the justice court's denial of Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant had forfeited his right to challenge the veracity of his breath test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had an evidentiary right to challenge the veracity of his Intoxilyzer breath test at trial, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; but (2) the district court did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction, as a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's alcohol concentration was over the statutorily proscribed limit. View "State v. Gai" on Justia Law

Plaintiff submitted an application for a 119-lot subdivision, which the Board of Missoula County Commissioners denied. Plaintiff petitioned for judicial review of the Board's action and alternatively claimed that the Board's actions constituted a regulatory taking that entitled him to just compensation. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on all of Richard's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing Plaintiff to conduct further discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion; (2) the district court properly granted summary judgment to the County on the Board's decision to deny the subdivision; and (3) the County was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's regulatory taking claim. View "Richards v. County of Missoula" on Justia Law

At issue on review in this case was whether the State Board of Land Commissioners properly issued leases to Ark Land Co., a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., without first conducting environmental review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The State Land Board did not conduct environmental review prior to entering the leases, relying on Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-121(2). The district court granted summary judgment to the State Land Board, Ark Land Co., and Arch Coal (Defendants), determining that the State retained sufficient ability to require adequate environmental protections sufficient to meet its constitutional and trust responsibilities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the leases did not allow for any degradation of the environment and specifically required full environmental review and full compliance with applicable State environmental laws, the act of issuing the leases did not impact or implicate the right to a clean and healthful environment in Mont. Const. art II, 3; and (2) therefore, section 77-1-121(2) was not subject to strict or "middle-tier" scrutiny. View "N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Bd. of Land Comm'rs" on Justia Law

After the Department of Public Health and Human Services was given temporary legal custody of D.B., a youth in need of care, the Department developed a treatment plan for Father. Following twenty months of poor cooperation from Father, the Department determined it would seek termination of his parental rights. The district court terminated Father's parental rights to D.B. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Department proposed an appropriate treatment plan; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father's behavior would be unlikely to change within a reasonable amount of time; and (3) Father lacked any basis for the Court to determine that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

Gail and Ron Armstrong began raising M.M.G. when the child was approximately one year old. M.M.G.'s mother, Arrah Lane, began leaving M.M.G. with the Armstrongs for weeks at a time until M.M.G. lived primarily with the Armstrongs. From the time M.M.G. was four years old for the next six years, Lane visited the child a few times a year. When M.M.G. was ten years old, Lane informed the Armstrongs she was moving to Wyoming with the child. Armstrongs filed a petition for a parenting plan. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the Armstrongs could not week a parenting plan unless Lane's parental rights had been terminated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that if the Armstrongs could demonstrate they had established a child-parent relationship with M.M.G., the district court would have jurisdiction to consider whether to grant the Armstrongs a parental interest in M.M.G. Remanded for a determination of whether the Armstrongs had established a child-parent relationship with M.M.G. View "Parenting of M.M.G." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from his conviction in the district court of one count of felony aggravated assault. Appellant argued (1) his conviction should be reversed under the plain error doctrine because law enforcement failed to investigate his claim of justifiable use of force as required by Mont. Code Ann. 45-3-112; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move for dismissal of his charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish that any alleged failure of law enforcement officials to comply with section 45-3-112 prejudiced his defense requiring the Court to exercise plain error review; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that his counsel's representation was ineffective. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Bobby Cooksey was convicted of deliberate homicide. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of fifty years in prison with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Appellant's motion for a new trial; (2) the district court properly excluded Appellant's offered evidence concerning the presence of the drug Paxil in the deceased's blood; (3) the investigation of the crime was conducted in compliance with Mont. Code Ann. 45-12-112; and (4) Appellant failed to establish that the prosecution's statements during closing argument constituted unfairly prejudicial misconduct. View "State v. Cooksey" on Justia Law

In this real property dispute about asserted easement rights, the district court ruled in favor of Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff on others. The court concluded neither party had "prevailed" as required by Mont. Code Ann. 70-17-112(5) and declined to award attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff appealed the district court's rulings in favor of Defendant but did not appeal the court's ruling pertaining to attorney fees. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling in favor of Defendant. On remand, the district court denied Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs, holding (1) Plaintiff should have appealed the issue of attorney fees on the first appeal, and (2) Plaintiff had not prevailed on all issues raised under section 70-17-112, and therefore was not entitled to fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff did not prevail on all claims, it was not entitled to fees and costs under section 70-17-112. View "Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Joukova" on Justia Law

C.R., D.B.J.'s step-father and guardian, appealed the termination of his guardianship of D.B.J, who was adjudicated to be a youth in need of care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate C.R.'s right to due process by excluding him from a show cause hearing and a permanency plan hearing; (2) the district court complied with the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-432 by holding an initial show cause hearing nineteen days after the filing of the initial abuse and neglect petition; and (3) the district court properly removed C.R. as a guardian pursuant to the best interests of the child standard at Mont. Code Ann. 72-5-234. View "In re D.B.J." on Justia Law