Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying relief to Appellant Advocates for School Trust Lands on its claim that House Bill 286 (HB 286), passed by the 2019 Montana Legislature and codified as Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-441, is unconstitutional, holding that there was no error.Appellant brought this action alleging that HB 286 is facially unconstitutional because it violates the State's trust obligations imposed by the 1889 Enabling Act and the Montana Constitution by creating a presumption against State ownership in ground water diverted from private property for use on leased school trust land, thereby reducing the value of those lands. The district court granted summary judgment to the State, concluding that Appellant's claim was unripe and that its proposed amendment was futile. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by granting summary judgment to the State; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to amend its complaint. View "Advocates v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court ordering equitable division of a jointly-owned retirement annuity, holding that the district court erred.The property settlement agreement that the parties entered into distributed more than $3 million in assets that were either Charles "Bo" Harms's premarital assets or primarily gifted to or inherited by Bo. At issue was whether a remainder clause in the parties' property settlement agreement providing that "all other real and personal property" would be distributed to Bo provided for distribution to him of all assets not otherwise identified. Sharon Harms argued that the parties' annuity was mistakenly omitted from the parties' settlement agreement. Bo filed a motion for contempt, claiming that Sharon was noncompliant with the final decree for failing to transfer the annuity to Bo. The district court denied Bo's motion and ordered that the annuity be equitably divided. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in finding that there was a mutual mistake in omitting the annuity from the settlement agreement. View "In re Marriage of Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court the decision and final judgment of the district court in favor of Truss Works, Inc. to foreclose a construction lien against Oswood Construction Company, holding that the district court did not err.After Truss Works filed its construction lien it brought this action seeking to foreclose on its lien. Oswood counterclaimed, alleging that Truss Works caused Oswood $118,571 in damages. After a trial, the district court entered judgment in Truss Works's favor. Oswood appealed, arguing that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous because the court never addressed Oswood's counterclaim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court's findings implicitly addressed Oswood's counterclaim; and (2) the court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, and the court did not commit an error of law. View "Truss Works, Inc. v. Oswood Construction Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing pending abuse and neglect proceedings after Child was returned to the care of Mother in South Carolina, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing the proceedings and placing Child with the non-offending parent.The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division removed Child from Father's care after he was arrested and incarcerated for assaulting his girlfriend. Mother requested that the district court dismiss the abuse and neglect proceedings or, in the alternative, place Child with her and confer with the South Carolina family court under the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The district court granted custody to Mother and ordered that the matter be dismissed upon confirmation of Child's return to South Carolina. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing the abuse and neglect proceedings after Child was returned to Mother's care in South Carolina. View "In re D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment order affirming a decision by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to issue a mining permit to Glacier Stone Supply, Inc. and an ensuing order denying the motion to supplement the administrative record filed by Henry and Diane Belk, holding that there was no error.At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in its interpretation of a Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) provision concerning regulatory impacts on private property rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the DEQ's analysis of regulatory impacts was sufficient under Mont. Code Ann. 75-1-201(1)(b)(iv)(D); (2) did not err in granting summary judgment to DEQ on its compliance with MEPA; and (3) did not err in denying the Belks' motion to supplement the record. View "Belk v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of sexual intercourse without consent, tampering with witnesses and informants, privacy in communications, and stalking, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.At issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to file a third amended information in the middle of trial and whether the district court's jury instruction on consent warranted reversal for plain error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to file its third amended information mid-trial; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on consent. View "State v. Lafournaise" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Depositors Insurance Company in its declaratory judgment action to determine any obligation it had relative to Patrick Sandidge pursuant to Ridley v. Guaranty National Insurance Co., 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by holding a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment; (2) did not err by holding that Depositors had standing to bring a declaratory action pursuant to Ridley; (3) did not err by granting Depositors' motion for summary judgment; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by denying Sandidge attorney fees and costs. View "Depositors Insurance Co. v. Sandidge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Associated Press and other news reporting outlets (collectively, the AP) and granting a motion to dismiss filed by Barry Usher, holding that the district court did not err.During the state's biennial legislative session in 2021, Usher, who was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Montana House of Representatives, and other Republican members of the Committee met privately to discuss pending legislation. Because Usher denied the AP access to the gathering, the AP brought this lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that this denial of access was a constitutional violation. The district court granted Usher's motion to dismiss, concluding that the gathering was controlled by the open meeting statute, Mont. Code Ann. 2-3-202, and that applying the statute in this case did not violate the AP's Mont. Const. art. II, 9 right to access a gathering of Judiciary Committee members. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in applying the statutory definition of a "meeting" to the AP's constitutional right to access a gathering of Judiciary Committee members. View "Associated Press v. Usher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of attempted deliberate homicide and sentencing him to serve an eighty-year prison term with no time suspended, holding that the district court prejudicially erred in one of its evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to reference and elicit testimony regarding Defendant's prior child sex abuse comments and references in an explicit and repetitive manner. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded this case for a new trial, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion in liming to categorically exclude all references to Defendant's prior child sexual abuse comments and references; but (2) erred by failing to carefully limit the subject prior bad acts evidence to avoid its manifestly inherent risk of unfair prejudice. View "State v. Lake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Yellowstone Disposal, LLC's petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the district court did not err.Yellowstone Disposal filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to issue a license or, in the alternative, issue a final decision approving or denying its application for a class II solid waste management systems (SWMS) license to operate a SWMS in Richland County. The district court granted DEQ's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Yellowstone Disposal did not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus. View "Yellowstone Disposal, LLC v. State, Department of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law