Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Cascade County's request for attorney fees and costs, interest, and unjust enrichment damages, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the provisions of Mont. Code Ann. 75-11-307(2) precluded the County's request for attorney fees, costs, interests, and unjust enrichment damages.This appeal involved a long-running dispute between the County and the Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board for remediation costs associated with petroleum contamination. The County held that four petroleum releases did not qualify for reimbursement from the Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Fund. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed in part. In district court on remand, the County filed a motion to the Board to pay "eligible costs." The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County's claims for attorney fees, costs, interest, and unjust enrichment damages were statutorily prohibited. View "Cascade Co. v. Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court committing Appellant to the Montana State Hospital at Warm Springs for a period of up to ninety days, holding that the district court committed reversible error when it allowed a professional person to testify by telephone over Appellant's objection.The State filed a petition for Appellant's involuntary commitment due to her disorganized thinking and confusion. At a hearing on the petition, the State called Amanda Torres, a licensed clinical professional counselor, to testify by telephone due to technical difficulties with courtroom video capabilities. The district court overruled Appellant's rejection and allowed Torres to testify by telephone. Relying on Torres's testimony, the district court concluded that Appellant suffered from a mental disorder and required commitment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erroneously overruled Appellant's objection and that the court was statutorily mandated to prohibit Torres's testimony by telephone because it did not satisfy the requirement for two-way audio-video communication and because Appellant objected. View "In re S.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed upon revocation, holding that the district court did not err in calculating Defendant's sentence pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203, the relevant statute governing the imposition of sentence upon revocation.Defendant pled guilty to three counts and received a sentence imposing a term of incarceration followed by period of probation. Defendant was arrested on probation violations before discharging his suspended sentence, and his suspended sentence was revoked. Upon resentencing, the court granted Defendant a total credit of 553 days. Defendant appealed his sentence imposed upon revocation, arguing that the 553 days should be credited towards each of the counts for which he was convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was only entitled to credit for elapsed time and presentence incarceration against the aggregate of the consecutive sentences imposed by the district court. View "State v. Souther" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for a DUI fourth offense, holding that Defendant was entitled to the expungement provision in effect at the time he committed an underlying offense.The State charged Defendant with a DUI third offense - a misdemeanor - but then amended the charge to DUI fourth offense - a felony - based on Defendant's three prior Texas DUI convictions. Defendant filed a motion to amend the felony back to a misdemeanor, arguing that his first conviction should be expunged. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI fourth offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it considered Defendant's first DUI conviction in 1990 when sentencing for his DUI conviction in 2015 because his 1990 DUI conviction should have been expunged. View "State v. Peralta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's suspended sentence, committing him to the custody of the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) for a three-year term, and giving him credit for elapsed time and previously-served jail time, holding that the district court issued an illegal sentence.The order of the district court at issue revoked Defendant's suspended sentence, committed him to the custody of the DOC for three years, and gave him credit for 105 days of elapsed time and 181 days of previously-served jail time. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court issued an illegal sentence when it failed to credit for time served on sentences that were ordered to run concurrent to his revocation sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to give Defendant credit for an additional 604 days of time served, holding that the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it failed to give Defendant credit for certain time served. View "State v. Kortan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiffs' negligence-based tort claims, breach of contract claims, and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not erroneously grant summary judgment to Defendants on the causation element of Plaintiffs' asserted negligence-based claims; (2) did not erroneously grant summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs' asserted breach of contract claim; and (3) did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs' asserted MCPA claim. View "Kostelecky v. Peas in a Pod LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of incest, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions based on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant had not demonstrated that the victim's allegations against other male relatives were false and thus inadmissible under the Rape Shield statute; (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was inappropriate for review on direct appeal; and (3) this Court declines to exercise plain error review to consider whether Defendant received a fundamentally fair trial when the district court did not sua sponte exclude testimony of false reporting statistics. View "State v. McCaulou" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for Leonard Schleder and declaring him the owner of the mineral rights at issue in this case, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) correctly interpreted the warranty deed language to reserve to Schleder all his mineral interests in the property; (2) properly considered the chain of title in interpreting the language of the unambiguous warranty deed; and (3) did not err in determining that estoppel by deed did not apply to prevent Schleder from asserting title to the mineral interests. View "Dellit v. Schleder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding several orders unfavorable to Plaintiff in this dispute over the development of a subdivision on property containing a floodplain within Lewis and Clark County, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In its challenged orders, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, denied Plaintiff's motion for a declaratory judgment that Mont. Code Ann. 76-5-109(4) is unconstitutional, dismissed Plaintiff's claims for inverse condemnation and nuisance, and dismissed Plaintiff's suit against the Montana Department of Transportation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim; (2) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim; (3) did not err in finding Mont. Code Ann. 76-5-109(4) was constitutional; and (4) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's remaining nuisance claims. View "Hamlin Construction & Development Co. v. Mont. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order entered by the district court denying Skyline Consulting Group's motion to vacate and set aside bond substitution and reinstate construction lien, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Skyline had waived its right to challenge the substitute bond.In this dispute between two subcontractors, Mortensen Woodwork petitioned the district court to substitute Skyline's construction lien against certain property with the intent to pursue foreclosure. Skyline named SP Hotel Owner in the lien. Mortensen then secured a bond from a surety company for 150 percent of the amount Skyline claimed and filed a petition to substitute the bond for the lien. The district court did so. Skyline requested that the district court reinstate its lien because Mortensen was not authorized to substitute a bond. The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Skyline did not waive its right to challenge the substitute bond in a separate arbitration proceeding; and (2) the district court erred in concluding that Montana law authorized Mortensen, a subcontractor, to substitute a bond for Skyline's construction lien. View "Skyline Consulting Group v. Mortensen Woodwork, Inc." on Justia Law