Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Employee, a truck driver, resigned from his employment with Employer after he developed arthritis. Employee later filed an occupational disease claim, which the Montana State Fund (MSF) denied. The Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) concluded that Employee's job duties were the major contributing cause of his arthritic condition, and therefore, Employee was suffering from an occupational disease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC did not err in concluding that Grande was suffering from a compensable occupational disease arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment, as the WCC's findings of fact were supported by substantial, credible evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "Mont. State Fund v. Grande" on Justia Law

Defendant Michell Anders was found unconscious and lying face down on the floor of a movie store. After several police officers and EMTs arrived on the scene and were unsuccessful at reviving Anders, one of the officers searched inside Anders' purse to look for identification and medical information. Inside the purse were drugs and drug paraphernalia. Anders subsequently pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, and reserved her right to appeal the order of the district court denying her motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Anders' motion to suppress the evidence found within her purse on the basis of the community caretaker doctrine, as the police acted appropriately under the standards the Court had adopted for application of the community caretaker doctrine. View "State v. Anders" on Justia Law

Judith LaPlante filed an action in tribal court against Town Pump, Inc. and Major Brands Distributing Imports, Inc. (collectively, Defendants). The case was eventually dismissed by the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over LaPlante's claims. LaPlante then filed a new action in state district court. District court judge Laurie McKinnon assumed jurisdiction. LaPlante attempted to commence the action in district court by transferring the tribal court action rather than filing a new complaint. The district court dismissed LaPlante's attempted transfer of the action from tribal court and provided LaPlante with twenty days to serve a complaint on Defendants. LaPlante filed a complaint as a new cause of action rather than as an amended pleading in the original transfer action. Judge McKinnon also assumed jurisdiction of the new action and consolidated the two cases. LaPlante filed a motion to substitute Judge McKinnon in the new action, which Judge McKinnon denied as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge McKinnon properly deemed LaPlante's substitution motion as untimely as the time limit elapsed well before LaPlante filed her substitution motion. View "LaPlante v. Town Pump, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer. Employer's Insurer accepted liability for Employee's claim. Insurer contracted with third-party Adjuster to provide services for Employee's claim. Employee and Insurer disagreed over elements of the claim, and Attorney advised Insurer on various legal matters. The claim was eventually resolved. Employee then filed the present action for unfair claims settlement practices, naming Insurer and an employee of Adjuster as defendants. Employee served Employer with a subpoena requesting, inter alia, a letter Attorney wrote to Adjuster's employee concerning the underlying case. Employer and Insurer objected to the subpoena, citing attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The court denied the motions. Insurer then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the district court correctly applied the law of attorney-client privilege but incorrectly analyzed the work product doctrine. However, because the court reached the proper conclusion, supervisory control was unnecessary. View "Am. Zurich Ins. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

John Lacey was convicted in district court for sexual intercourse without consent based on his sexual intercourse with a minor while the minor was either asleep or intoxicated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's statements during closing argument in the aggregate did stray so far from the permissible to satisfy the Court's standard of the exercise of plain error review, and counsel's failure to object to the statements did not constitute unreasonable conduct; and (2) the State did not impermissibly change or expand its legal theory of how Lacey committed sexual intercourse without consent, as Lacey's argument neglected the material available in the affidavit in support of the information. View "State v. Lacey" on Justia Law

Lionel Ellison was convicted in the county justice court of misdemeanor party or family member assault. He appealed the conviction to the district court. Ellison subsequently appealed from an order of the district court denying his motion to supplement the record and denying his issues on appeal. The court denied the motions, which were based upon the State's alleged withholding of exculpatory information in violation of Ellison's right to due process according to Brady v. Maryland, concluding that Ellison's claims were not ripe for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the district court did not err in denying Ellison's motions, as Ellison failed to establish a prima facie Brady violation and did not establish that his defense was prejudiced under the facts. View "State v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Before being arrested for DUI, Richard Bollman underwent the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. Bollman was subsequently convicted of his fifth DUI offense, a felony, after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the court did not err in (1) finding that a highway patrol trooper was qualified under Mont. R. Evid. 702 to testify as an expert about the correlation between alcohol consumption and HGN, which was the scientific basis of the HGN test; and (2) denying Bollman's motion for a mistrial based on a police officer's reference to "felony DUIs" during questioning by the State, as any prejudice from the statement was very minor, if it was prejudicial at all, and the statement did not contribute to Bollman's conviction. View "State v. Bollman" on Justia Law

In 2007, Scottie and Dawn Pederson (the Pedersons) and Rocky Mountain Bank (the Bank) entered into a construction loan agreement pursuant to which the Bank agreed to lend the Pedersons several thousand dollars. In 2008, the Pedersons and the Bank agreed to finance the construction loan through three short term loans. In 2009, the Pedersons tried to refinance their loans but were unable to do so. Due to alleged failures on the part of the Bank, the Pedersons brought suit against the Bank in 2011, asserting claims for, inter alia, negligence, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. After it was served with the complaint, the Bank filed a Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, asserting the statutes of limitations had run on all of the Pedersons' claims. The district court granted the Bank's motion and dismissed the Pedersons' claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable statutes of limitations began to run in 2008 because the Pedersons' claims had accrued and they had discovered the facts constituting the claims; and (2) by filing their complaint more than three years later, the Pedersons failed to commence their action within any of the applicable statutes of limitations. View "Pederson v. Rocky Mountain Bank" on Justia Law

Judith Newman (Newman), mother and personal representative of the estate of Karlye Newman (Karlye), appealed from certain pretrial and trial rulings made in the district court concerning the suicidal death of Karlye while at a boarding school for troubled teenagers. Newman named as Defendants Robert Lichfield and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. A jury found Defendants were not negligent, did not commit deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and were not liable for the possible wrongful acts of other defendants regarding Karlye's death. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the scope of evidence regarding foreseeability, as the exclusion of the evidence was highly prejudicial to Newman and largely prevented her from being able to argue foreseeability, duty, and negligence on the part of Defendants. Remanded for a new trial. View "Newman v. Lichfield" on Justia Law

H&H Development, LLC hired Jim Ramlow for legal services. In 2007, H&H filed a pro se complaint in Lake County against Ramlow and his law firm for professional negligence. Eleven days later, H&H, through counsel, filed a complaint in Flathead County against Eagle Bend, seeking damages based on allegations similar to those in the Lake County complaint. H&H settled with Eagle Bend. In 2010, H&H filed an amended Flathead County complaint that named Ramlow and his firm as defendants and included a lawyer's signature. The district court subsequently declared the Lake County complaint null and void after determining that a non-lawyer could not file a complaint on behalf of a limited liability company. Thereafter, the court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the amended complaint based upon the running of the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a district court has discretion to determine whether a corporation should be able to relate back to an amended complaint signed by a lawyer, to its original, pro se complaint. Remanded to assess whether Mont. R. Civ. P. 15(c) permitted H&H's amended complaint in Flathead County to relate back to H&H's pro se Lake County complaint. View "H & H Dev., LLC v. Ramlow" on Justia Law