Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed an order that preliminarily enjoined parts of the Montana Marijuana Act. Montana Cannabis Industry Association, Mark Matthews, Shirley Hamp, Shelly Yeager, Jane Doe, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Michael Geci-Black, John Stowers, Point Hatfield, and Charlie Hamp (collectively, Plaintiffs) cross-appealed. The 2004 Medical Marijuana Act left in place those provisions in the Montana criminal code that make it illegal to cultivate, possess, distribute or use marijuana, while simultaneously protecting authorized users of medical marijuana from being prosecuted. The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 423, which repealed the 2004 Medical Marijuana Act and replaced it with the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA), which dramatically changed the landscape for the cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to both temporarily and permanently enjoin the implementation of the MMA in its entirety. Based on a motion filed with the complaint, the District Court immediately entered a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the MMA which prohibited the advertising of "marijuana or marijuana-related products" and which was scheduled to take effect that day. By stipulation, the temporary restraining order remained in effect pending the preliminary injunction hearing. The court ultimately issued its Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The issues raised on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the District Court erred when it applied a strict scrutiny, fundamental rights analysis to preliminarily enjoin the MMA; (2) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(2), MCA; (3) whether the District Court erred in not enjoining section 50-46-308(7), MCA; and, (4) whether the court erred in declining to enjoin the MMA in its entirety. The Supreme Court concluded after review: (1) the MMA did not implicate the fundamental right to employment, and reversed the District Court’s holding on this issue; and in pursuing health, an individual does not have a fundamental affirmative right of access to a particular drug. The Court reversed the District Court's holding with respect to this issue. Because the Court remanded the case on the scrutiny issue, it declined to address Issues Two, Three and Four. View "Montana Cannabis v. Montana" on Justia Law

Petitioner Caryn Lewis asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of supervisory control over the Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County Cause No. ADV 10-895. The District Court action arose from a 2003 motor vehicle/pedestrian accident in which Lewis was the pedestrian. The vehicle that struck Lewis left the scene, and neither the vehicle nor the driver was ever located. Lewis’s complaint stated she suffered serious bodily injuries from the accident, and her medical reports showed that those injuries included a cause for a Rule 35 examination. The Court never ruled that a plaintiff's claim for general emotional distress damages is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for ordering a Rule 35 mental examination. Lewis did not claim damages for any mental or psychological disorder or injury due to the accident, nor did she claim that a pre-existing mental condition was exacerbated by the accident or assert an independent tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Rather, she made only a general claim for "emotional pain, suffering and anxiety" associated with her physical injuries from the accident. Upon review, the Court concluded that the matter involved a legal issue as to which the District Court made a mistake of law. Because Lewis did not put her mental condition in controversy, the District Court erred in granting State Farm's (her insurer) motion for an independent psychological examination of her under M. R. Civ. P. 35. "And, because Lewis's loss of privacy in submitting to a Rule 35 psychological examination would be irretrievable, the normal appeal process would be inadequate to address the District Court's error." The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lewis v. 8th Judicial District" on Justia Law

Appellant Raul Sanchez appealed a district court order that denied his amended petition for postconviction relief. The issue on appeal was whether the court erred in doing so. Appellant admitted to shooting his girlfriend Alesha in 2004. He objected to the admission of a hearsay statement Alesha made in a handwritten note she addressed "to whom it may concern" and suggested that should tragedy befall her, that she suspected it was at the hands of Appellant. Appellant raised his objection as a violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Montana Supreme Court concluded that while the note constituted hearsay not subject to an exception, its admission was harmless error because the State presented other admissible evidence that proved the same facts. Furthermore. the Court concluded that Appellant forfeited his constitutional right to confront Alesha when he killed her. Appellant filed his application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to appeal the Montana Supreme Court's confrontation decision to the United States Supreme Court. The district court denied Appellant's application for relief. Finding "overwhelming" evidence to support Appellant's conviction and that there was no error by his counsel for "failing" to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of relief. View "Sanchez v. Montana" on Justia Law

The Montana Public Employees' Retirement Board (MPERB) denied death benefits to Petitioner Erene Briese (Erene) because her deceased husband, who had originally named her as his beneficiary under the Montana Sheriffs’ Retirement System (SRS), had later filed a new designation, dropping her as a beneficiary, while marital dissolution proceedings were pending. Erene appealed to the District Court, which affirmed the MPERB’s order. Erene then appealed the District Court’s order to the Supreme Court. "At a minimum," the Supreme Court agreed with those courts that have held that "a court has equitable power to order a return to the status quo when a party violating a temporary restraining order has died. Thus, in this case, the District Court should have invalidated the husband's 2006 change of beneficiaries because it was made in violation of the statutorily-mandated restraining order, and should have determined that his 2001 designation of Erene was "the most recent membership card filed with the board." View "Briese v. MPER Board" on Justia Law

This case arose from claims asserted by multiple persons against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBSMT) and Montana Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA). Claimants asserted that while they were fully insured by BCBSMT or MCHA, they submitted claims that the insurers denied based upon exclusions contained in their insurance policies. These exclusions were subsequently disapproved by the Montana Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) and the insureds sought the previously-denied benefits. The matter evolved into a class action and three of the claimants, Krista Lucas, Brittany Smith, and Alice Speare, were named class representatives. Subsequently, a settlement was negotiated. Three other claimants, Tyson Pallister, Kevin Budd and Jessica Normandeau, objected to the settlement and sought review by the Second Judicial District Court. The District Court approved the settlement. Pallister, Budd and Normandeau appealed asserting numerous errors by the District Court including but not limited to the court’s error in denying Pallister’s motion to conduct discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on a discrete issue of discovery and vacated the District Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement. View "Pallister et al v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana" on Justia Law

Michael Hicks appealed a district court's order awarding Anthony Varano damages of $616.33 in a dispute following a snowmobiling trip the two took together. Varano allowed Hicks to borrow his snowmobile. The parties disputed the events that took place on the trip, but the vehicle got damaged, and Varano sued Hicks for damages. Hicks challenged the district court's determination that there was sufficient evidence entered at trial to prove the existence of a contract between the parties. The Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence and affirmed the district court. View "Varano v. Hicks" on Justia Law

Chris Otto appealed a district court's order that denied his motion to dismiss his felony driving under the influence (DUI) charge. The issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly determined that Otto's three prior DUI-related convictions supported the enhancement of his most recent DUI to a felony. Upon review, the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Montana v. Otto" on Justia Law

Mountain West Bank obtained a summary judgment against Helena Christian School and several individual defendants (HCS) following HCS’s default on loans from Mountain West. HCS appealed the decision of the Montana First Judicial District Court. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the District Court erred by granting Mountain West’s motion for summary judgment without complying with the requirements of 71-1-222, MCA; and (2) whether the District Court erred by entering a judgment that did not comply with 25-9-203, MCA. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, giving the lower court the mandate to compute and state the exact judgment amount, including interest, pertaining to the unsecured loan; for the secured loan, the court must comply with the provisions of 71-1-222, MCA. Upon receipt of notice of the proceeds received in the sheriff’s sale, in the event of a deficiency, the court must determine the appropriate rate of interest vis-a-vis the deficiency, and enter an order of judgment computing and stating the amount owed by Defendants. View "Mtn. West Bank, NA v. Helena Christian School, Inc." on Justia Law

Darla Edward appealed a district court order that ordered her to pay restitution following a collision between her car and a bicyclist, and the ensuing court trial and sentencing. She raised four issues on appeal: (1) she contended the district court erred when he held that the jury should have determined causation; (2) the evidence in the record did not support the amount of restitution she was ordered to pay; (3) her rights constitutional rights to a jury and a fair trial were violated; (4) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error with the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in all respects. View "City of Billings v. Edward" on Justia Law

Ralph Jentile appealed a district court decision that ordered him to pay for the repairs to two Whitefish Police Department patrol cars that collided with each other while pursuing Jentile. Jentile raised two issues on appeal: (1) whether the amount of restitution Jentile was ordered to pay should be reduced because of the alleged comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident; and (2) whether Jentile's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to specifically argue that the amount of restitution should have been reduced because of the comparative negligence of the officer involved in the accident. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing that the district court should have taken the officer's negligence into consideration when arriving at the restitution amount. View "City of Whitefish v. Jentile" on Justia Law