Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on Alexander and Ilma Brishkas' claims of inverse condemnation, negligence, and attorney fees and costs, holding that the district court did not err.The Brishkas sued MDT alleging that the breach of their 4.5 million-gallon, manmade fishpond on their property resulted from MDT's improvement of Montana Highway 487. The next year, Michael and Stacey Covey and the Covey Trust (collectively, the Coveys) sued the Brishkas for damages suffered to their property as a result of the breach of the pond. The jury returned a verdict against the Brishkas and award damages to the Coveys. Thereafter, MDT filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Brishkas were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of proximate cause and damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied and that the Brishkas' claims were precluded. View "Brishka v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Bob Walden and Sylvan Walden on their negligence suit against Yellowstone Electric Company (YECO), holding that the district court did not err.The Waldens were moving cattle north on a portion of Montana Highway 24 when Thomas Newell, who was driving a truck owned by YECO, ran into the cattle, killing ten heifers. The Waldens brought suit alleging negligence. The district court determined that Newell and YECO, as Newell's employer, were negligent as a matter of law in causing the death of the Waldens' cows. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Walden v. Yellowstone Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the count of negligent vehicular assault, a misdemeanor, holding that the district court erred in failing to dismiss the negligent vehicular assault count upon the close of the State's case-in-chief.Defendant was charged with four counts. At issue on appeal was Count III, negligent vehicular assault. Defendant asked the district court to dismiss the count for insufficient evidence. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant was then convicted of Count III and other counts. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III, holding that the district court (1) erred in admitting hearsay evidence from the alleged victim to the investigating officer to prove an element of negligent vehicular assault; and (2) erred in refusing to dismiss Count III at the close of the State's case. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed an order issued by the district court denying a motion for substitution of judge that was made after the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment order of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court erred in denying the motion for substitution for judge.This matter arose from condemnation proceedings concerning the water supply system serving the Missoula urban area. Mountain Water Company and Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, LP (collectively, Owners) filed a notice of constitutional question and motion for partial summary judgment, contending that Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-306(2) and (3) were unconstitutional. The district court determined that section 70-30-306 was constitutional facially and as-applied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for limited discovery. On remand, Owners filed a motion for substitution of district judge. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Owners were denied their right of substitution upon this Court's reversal of the district court's summary judgment order. View "Missoula v. Mountain Water Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony possession of dangerous drug (methamphetamine), holding that the district court did not err by prohibiting Defendant's examination of the State's crime lab witness about the involvement of a discharged crime lab employee with the drug evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting him from cross-examining the crime lab witness about the discharged crime lab employee's prior testing and the need for retesting. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that where Defendant's trial request was premised upon speculation about contamination, the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring further inquiry. View "State v. Brasda" on Justia Law

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court ordered that the motion filed by the Montana State Legislature "for the immediate disqualification of all Justices" of the Montana Supreme Court be denied, holding that the Legislature was not entitled to relief.In an original proceeding, the Legislature, as an intervenor, and Governor Greg Gianforte raised concerns about a survey conducted by the Montana Judges Association of its members facilitated by Beth McLaughlin, the Judicial Branch's Court Administrator, regarding Senate Bill 140, which has since been signed into law and changes the way the Governor fills vacancies for judges and justices in the state. At issue was an investigative subpoena the Legislature issued to the Department of Administration seeking the production of emails sent and received by McLaughlin between certain dates. McLaughlin sought to quash or enjoy enforcement of the subpoena, which began the instant proceeding. The Legislature subsequently issued a subpoena to each justice of the Montana Supreme Court demanding that each justice produce the emails subject to the investigative subpoena and then filed a motion to disqualify the justices. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the Legislature was not entitled to its request. View "McLaughlin v. Montana Legislature" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court that Whitefish City did not engage in illegal spot zoning and reversed the district court's ruling that Whitefish City Ordinance 18-23, which specified additional conditional uses, violated the uniformity requirement found in Mont. Code Ann. 76-2-302(2), holding that the City acted within its discretion in enacting the ordinance.This case involved an undeveloped parcel in The Lakes neighborhood known as Area 2(c). IO2.5, a series member of IO-3, LLC, filed a request with the City to amend Ordinance 99-9 to allow use of a conditional use permit (CUP) instead of a planned unit development (PUD) to develop Area 2(c). The City Council approved the request and approved Ordinance 18-23, directing amendment of the official zoning map and permitting development of Area 2(c) through a CUP instead of a PUD. Plaintiffs brought this complaint alleging that Ordinance 18-23 violates the statutory uniformity requirement. The district court struck the portion of Ordinance 18-23 that specified additional conditional uses. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in ruling that Ordinance 18-23 did not constitute spot zoning; and (2) erred in ruling that Ordinance 18-23 violated section 76-2-302(2)'s uniformity requirement. View "Hartshorne v. Whitefish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to provide a specific unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion or prejudice Defendant's substantial rights in declining to instruct the jury that a witness is presumed to speak the truth; and (3) any potential misconduct by the prosecutor in crossing into the realm of explicit comments regarding witness credibility did not implicate a potential miscarriage of justice, breach of fundamental fairness, or compromise of the integrity of the judicial process. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's conviction, entered after a second trial, for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping, holding that the district court abused its discretion in declaring and mistrial and erred in concluding that double jeopardy did not bar Defendant's retrial.Defendant was originally charged with incest and a jury was impaneled. Nearing the conclusion of the State's case the court reporter had either a heart attack or a stroke and was taken to the hospital. The court declared a mistrial, and a retrial was scheduled. Before the second trial, the State amended its charge to correct a deficiency in the original charging documents. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's subsequent prosecution for sexual intercourse without consent and bail jumping for the same incident as his first prosecution was barred by the United States and Montana Constitutions protections against double jeopardy; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. View "State v. Newrobe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony theft by possession of stolen property and four misdemeanor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court acted within its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for mistrial after two separate references to Defendant's "jail" status were made by State witnesses; (2) the district court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a lesser-included offense of the charged theft by possession of stolen property; and (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims would more appropriately be addressed through a petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Denny" on Justia Law