Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Hamilton Southside Historic Preservation Association's (HSHPA) petition for a writ of certiorari challenging four decisions of the Hamilton Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in determining that the ZBA did not abuse its discretion when it (1) issued a conditional use permit to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Helena to construct and use a new church structure after demolition of the St. Francis Catholic Church; (2) approved a rear-yard setback variance; (3) approved a steeple height variance; and (4) upheld the zoning administrator's approval of a joint use parking agreement for the new structure. View "Hamilton Historic Preservation Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the municipal court sentencing Appellant for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater (DUI per se), first offense, holding that the municipal court lawfully ordered Appellant to satisfy a $600 fine using his COVID-19 stimulus payment but erred in concluding that it did not have discretion to suspend the fine or to enforce the fine through an alternative method of payment.Appellant pleaded guilty to an amended misdemeanor charge of first-offense DUI per se and agreed to the minimum $600 fine with the understanding that he would ask the court to consider his ability to pay the fine. The municipal court sentenced Appellant to ten days of incarceration and a $600 fine. Appellant appealed, arguing that the municipal court erred in imposing the fine despite his inability to pay. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court abused its discretion by not recognizing that it possessed the discretion to order Appellant to satisfy the mandatory fine via alternative methods to a dollar-for-dollar repayment plan ordered by the municipal court. View "City of Whitefish v. Curran" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and orders entered by the district court in this property dispute, holding that substantial credible evidence supported the district court's finding that Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock Company obtained a prescriptive easement over two roads across Linda McMullen's property.In 2016, Cremer Rodeo filed this lawsuit seeking a prescriptive easement over the Lien Road and the Medley Roads. After denying McMullen's motion for summary judgment the district court held a bench trial and concluded that Cremer Rodeo had a prescriptive easement over the Lien and Medley Roads. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by denying McMullen's motion for summary judgment; (2) did not abuse its discretion by granting Cremer Rodeo leave to amend its complaint; (3) did not err when it concluded that Cremer Rodeo's amended complaint related back to its original complaint; and (4) properly found that Cremer Rodeo obtained a prescriptive easement over the Lien and Medley Roads. View "Cremer Rodeo Land v. McMullen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and orders approving a settlement between Robert Allum and Montana State Fund and dismissing Allum's claims for benefits, holding that Allum resolved all of his dispute benefits, and therefore, the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) did not have jurisdiction over Allum's remaining stand-alone constitutional challenges.The State Fund accepted liability for the knee injury Allum received at work. Later, Allum notified State Fund that he also asserted a back condition resultant from his knee injury. Allum filed a petition seeking a hearing on his injury claims and also sought a hearing on his claims challenging the constitutionality of the Montana Workers' Compensation Act and the WCC. Allum and State Fund settled the injury claims prior to trial. The WCC approved the settlement agreement and then concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address Allum's constitutional challenges because Allum had resolved all of his benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC's conclusions of law were correct. View "Allum v. Mont. State Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss a complaint citing him with violating 49 C.F.R. 393.11, incorporated by Mont. Code Ann. 61-10-154, which required a red light to be affixed to protruding loads, holding that the district court did not err by denying Appellant's motion to dismiss for unlawful delegation of legislative authority.After Appellant was convicted in justice court he appealed de novo to the district court, arguing that section 61-10-154, which authorizes the Montana Department of Transportation to adopt rules and regulations, and Mont. Code Ann. 61-9-512, which criminalizes violations of regulations adopted pursuant to section 61-10-154, constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an administrative body. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the legislature did not delegate the lawmaking function, as argued by Appellant. View "State v. Akhmedli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's felony charge against him for failure to register as a sexual offender, holding that the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA), as amended since 2007, was punitive in nature.Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in 1994 and served and discharged his sentence. At the time, SVORA, known then as Montana's Sexual offender Registration Act, required Defendant to maintain registration for ten years. When the legislature amended SVORA, it included more onerous steps and applied them retroactively to previously convicted registrants such as Defendant. In 2019, Defendant was charged with failure to register. Defendant appealed, arguing that the amended SVORA requirements rendered the statute an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment for his earlier crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) SVORA as amended is punitive in nature; and (2) therefore, the requirements brought on by those amendments could not retroactively be applied to defendants whose convictions predate the amendments. View "State v. Hinman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two homicides and two attempts to solicit a third homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of deliberate homicide and two counts of solicitation to commit deliberate homicide and sentenced to serve four concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State's use of jailhouse informants did not violate Defendant's right to counsel; (2) the jury was fully and fairly instructed as to the applicable law; (3) any error on the part of the trial court in limiting defense counsel's ability to comment on a missing prosecution witness during closing argument; and (4) this Court will not exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and other trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault with a weapon and his commitment to the Department of Public Health and Human Service (DPHHS) for the duration of his twenty-year sentence with ten years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and the parties agreed to recommend that Defendant be committed to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for the duration of his sentence. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to twenty years in DPHHS's custody with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court unjustly resumed his criminal proceedings due to the lengthy period between his arrest and the date he regained fitness to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss because resuming Defendant's criminal proceedings was not unjust. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order issued by the district court denying Montana Opticom, LLC's motion to disqualify counsel for Scott Rysewyk, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel.Rysewyk, represented by Rabb Law Firm (RLF), filed a complaint alleging trespass, ejectment, negligent civil conspiracy, and inverse condemnation by Opticom and Jim Dolan, Jr., a partial owner of Opticom. Opticom filed a motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel, arguing that Rysewyk's counsel of record was disqualified from representing him because of the firm's earlier representation of Dolan. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Opticom offered "no proof of any actual prejudice flowing from the alleged conflict of interest." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the district court was presented with no evidence that Opticom was actually prejudiced, the court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason by denying Opticom's motion to disqualify. View "Rysewyk v. Mont. Opticom, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court requiring Broadwater County to provide to Helena Independent Record (IR) or other interested persons redacted videographer and documentation records pertaining to Jason Ellsworth's May 2021 stop by and encounter with a Montana Highway Patrol officer, holding that there was no error.Ellsworth pleaded guilty to an obstructing a peace officer. Thereafter, a reporter with the IR requested from Broadwater County a copy of Ellsworth's investigative file. Petitioner, a county attorney, determined that the file contained confidential criminal justice information and filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling to clarify and enforce the rights of recovery to redacted confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) contained in the file. Petitioner also filed a separate motion for leave to deposit the investigative file under seal. The district court (1) concluded that Ellsworth's criminal case had been completed and that the declaratory action was ripe for decision; and (2) held that Ellsworth's privacy rights outweighed the public's right to know regarding certain information irrelevant to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellsworth was given a proper opportunity to participate, and his due process right was not infringed regarding the release of the CCJI. View "Broadwater Co. v. Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information" on Justia Law