Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court entered judgment for the City of Cut Bank on Petitioner Arthur F. Rooney's complaint that he was wrongfully terminated from employment as a City police officer. Petitioner appealed the court's decision that his termination did not violate Montana's Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA). The City cross-appealed the district court's earlier interlocutory order which denied the City's motion to dismiss the WDEA claim. Because the Supreme Court reversed the interlocutory ruling, it did not reach the issues raised by Petitioner. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the City on this alternative ground. View "Rooney v. City of Cut Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Stoner appealed a district court's order to deny his motion to dismiss several marijuana charges against him. The sole issue on appeal was whether the District Court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss after he acquired a medical marijuana card. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Defendant was required to have obtained and be in possession of a valid registry identification card at the time of the offense for which he sought immunity from prosecution. Because Defendant did not obtain a registry identification card until after he was charged, he was not entitled to dismissal of the charges against him. View "Montana v. Stoner" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. View "Montana v. Sartain" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Bomar appealed a district court order that dismissed his petition for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Defendant alleged that his trial counsel's failure to present certain expert evidence at trial rendered prejudiced him and therefore was a violation of his constitutional rights. Finding that counsel's decision not to present certain evidence was a strategic decision that did not amount to a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. View "Bomar v. Montana" on Justia Law

Richard Ford suffered a work-related injury to his neck. He was diagnosed with a cervical strain, and Sentry Casualty Company accepted liability and paid benefits for this injury. During Ford’s treatment, he underwent an MRI which revealed a more serious cervical disc condition. Ford claimed that the workplace accident caused or aggravated this condition and that Sentry was liable for surgery to address it. Ford also claimed that Sentry was liable for ongoing temporary total disability benefits and that Sentry had unreasonably adjusted his claim. Sentry denied liability for Ford’s cervical disc condition based on the opinions of several doctors that the condition was not related to the industrial accident. Sentry also maintained that Ford reached maximum medical improvement, that he has been released to return to work without restrictions, and that it reasonably adjusted his claim. The dispute ultimately reached the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC). Trial was held in early 2011. Ford and his wife testified, and numerous medical records were admitted into evidence. The WCC ruled in favor of Sentry as to each of the foregoing issues, and Ford appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the WCC correctly determined that he failed to carry his burden of establishing causation with regard to his disc condition and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Ford v. Sentry Casualty Co." on Justia Law

John Hood appealed a district court's decision to deny his motion to amend the parties' parenting plan. The parties had a "great deal" of difficulty working out a parenting and visitation plan though they lived n the same city for several years following their divorce. The district court concluded that it was in the children's best interests for both parents to reside in the same city, there was good reason for Tenile Hood to move to Utah with her parents so that the children would have care while Tenile completed her education and got a job. The court stated that as of the hearing, Tenile had no job, was on public assistance and was not in school, and that if she continued that lifestyle, she should remain in Montana. The court then adopted Tenile's proposed parenting plan, but that it should be modified from time to time to provide for additional reasonable visitation. John began filing motions to hold Tenile in contempt of court regarding the parenting plan contending she failed to abide by it, and that she continued to frustrate his contact with the children. After a year, he alleged Tenile failed to complete her education, failed to get a job and failed to enroll in college. Tenile refuted these allegations. The district court determined that because Tenile had always been the primary residential parent, she should continue to be the residential custodian. The court denied John's motion to amend. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined John failed to meet his burden of proof that the children's best interests would be better served by requiring Tenile to relocate to Montana or by granting primary physical custody to John. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Hood v. Hood" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Robin Lewis appealed a district court judgment that found him ineligible for parole. In 2010, Defendant was charged with aggravated assault for the abuse of his minor sons. Nothing in Defendant's plea agreement addressed the district court's authority to restrict Defendant's eligibility for parole, and it contained no promise from the State regarding such a restriction. Defendant took exception to a subsequent presentencing investigation report (PSI) that recommended the court impose a twenty-year sentence with fifteen years suspended. The PSI recommended that Defendant not be considered eligible for release until he completed a chemical dependency treatment, anger management program and a mental health assessment. The court eventually sentenced Defendant to twenty years with ten years suspended without parole. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and Defendant's sentence. View "Montana v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant William Parrish appealed a district court's decision to deny him postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted in 2008 of criminal endangerment, and the Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he was sentenced based on erroneous information about his prior criminal record, and that the erroneous information was submitted by the County Attorney because of anger toward him. The district court denied Defendant's petition because Defendant had already raised the issue of the accuracy of his prior criminal history at sentencing. Since that issue was known and could have been raised in the direct appeal, it could not be raised again for postconviction relief. For the first time on appeal, Defendant claimed his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of the erroneous sentencing in the 2010 direct appeal. The Supreme Court declined to consider the issue raised for the first time on appeal; further the Court found that Defendant presented no evidence his sentence was based on the precise number of prior felony convictions he had, and no showing that that fact would have garnered him any material relief had it been raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Parrish v. Montana" on Justia Law

Ober Spear appealed s district court order dismissing his wrongful discharge complaint. Spear had worked as a Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) trooper since 1958. He applied for permanent disability treatment in 1962. MHP placed Spear on sick leave. The Retirement Board held hearings and determined that Spear did not have a permanent disability due in part to Spear's admission that he had gone hunting, bowling and water skiing following his injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. Spear then made a series of unsuccessful attempts to receive further benefits. Notably in 2000, Spear contacted MHP concerning additional sick leave benefits; the attorney general's (AG) office returned the call to clarify Spear's "misconception" that he still worked for MHP. The AG's office informed Spear that his employment with MHP ended in 1962 when he stopped reporting for duty. MHP's chief administrator wrote to the Montana Public Employees Retirement Administration in 2009 in response to the Administration's receipt of inquiries from Spear regarding his retirement. The administrator noted that Spear had not been an MHP employee since 1982. Spear filed a "wrongful dismissal" claim against MHP and the State in 2010, alleging that MHP effectively discharged him from his job. The district court dismissed Spear's case, determining Spear's employment had been "severed" in 1962. Even if he had a viable claim, the court determined Spear was put on notice that he was no longer considered an employee in 2000. The case was dismissed for being outside the one-year statute of limitations. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the district court properly dismissed Spear's case and affirmed. View "Spear v. Montana" on Justia Law

In July 2009, Charles Albert’s Billings, Montana home caught fire. Despite response by the City of Billings Fire Department, the house burned to the ground. Albert sued the City for negligence of the Billings Fire Department, discrimination based upon age and disability, slander, and violation of his constitutional and statutory right to know and obtain documents held by the City. The District Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on all issues. Albert appealed. Finding no error in the district court's consideration of Albert's case, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's decision. View "Albert v. City of Billings" on Justia Law