Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the final count of Plaintiff's complaint after granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff's declaratory judgment and issuing a permanent injunction against Defendants, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaration that Defendants had materially breached an agreement regarding a shared water well and requesting injunctive relief barring Defendants from interfering with Plaintiff's use of the well. The district court granted a permanent injunction and declaratory relief and then dismissed Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly granted summary judgment to Plaintiff based on the language the agreement limiting water usage; (2) did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion for leave to amend. View "Estate of Mandich v. French" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment on a quiet title action and related counterclaims to Plaintiffs, holding that there was no error.In this case concerning an approximately thirty-acre property Plaintiffs brought a quiet title action against Defendants. Defendants asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiffs for constructive fraud. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that Plaintiffs gained ownership of the disputed property through adverse possession; and (2) did not err in granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Defendants' fraud claim. View "Hart v. Hale" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, holding that the proceedings must be remanded for Defendant to receive credit for time served.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for criminal endangerment and was sentenced to a five-year suspended sentence. After Defendant committed several probation violations, the district court revoked his suspended sentence and imposed a new sentence. The order denied Defendant's request that he be credited for a sixty-day period that he served as a sanction at the Sanction, Treatment, Assessment, Revocation, and Transition (START) facility. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's first argument was not preserved for appeal; and (2) Defendant was entitled to credit for time served at the START facility. View "State v. Tippets" on Justia Law

In this real property dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding a total of $360,000 to Corey Rubin and Don Hauth in the lower court proceedings against Brent and Grace Hughes, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Rubin and Health filed a complaint against the Hugheses seeking a declaratory judgment as to their respective easements, a temporary restraining order, and injunction, and alleging that the Hugheses' behavior constituted a nuisance, interfered with the use of their easements, and caused them mental distress. The district court entered judgment against the Hugheses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly denied the Hugheses' motion for a directed verdict; (2) did not err in determining that the Hugheses did not have an easement that entitled them to specific performance; (3) did not err in waiving the statutory cap on punitive damages; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Rubin's unenforceable agreement to grant the Hugheses an easement. View "Rubin v. Hughes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of guardianship by the district court granting guardianship of Mother's son to his maternal grandparents, holding that the district court did not err in finding that continued efforts to reunify Mother and child would likely be unproductive.After a hearing, the district court granted the Department of Public Health and Human Services' petition for guardianship of six-year-old S.S. On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in finding that continued efforts to reunify Mother and S.S. would likely be unproductive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that additional reunification efforts would not be productive. View "In re S.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative a certified question issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this insurance dispute.At issue was Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-334(2), which provides that Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-337(2) is "not intended to increase the risk assumed under policies subject to" its requirements. Specifically in question was whether, when an insurance policy does not adhere to the technical requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 33-15-337(2), the insurer may nonetheless rely on unambiguous exclusions or limitations to the policy's coverage. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, concluding that, notwithstanding a failure to follow the provisions of section 33-15-337(2), an insurer may rely on unambiguous exclusions or limitations to the policy's coverage when invalidating such a provision would result in an increase of the risk assumed. View "High Country Paving, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw conducted pursuant to a search warrant, holding that there was no error.Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw, arguing that Wheatland County Justice of the Peace Richard Egabakken lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant because the crimes occurred in Golden Valley County. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it concluded that Justice of the Peace Egebakken had jurisdiction to issue a search warrant for Defendant's blood draw in Wheatland County. View "State v. Grussing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court affirming the municipal court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of obstructing a peace officer for insufficient evidence, holding that the district court erred.Defendant was charged with obstructing a peace officer by attempting to walk away from officers while being questioned. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence, arguing that she could not knowingly obstruct the officer's enforcement of the law where the officer failed to inform her that she was being detained or otherwise required to remain on scene to answer questions. The municipal court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the obstruction charge. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court committing Appellant to the Montana State Hospital (MSH) to regain fitness after a psychologist determined Appellant was not fit to stand trial on pending criminal charges, holding that the district court correctly denied Appellant's motion to dismiss.Appellant pleaded guilty to drug-related charges. Before sentencing, the district court ordered that Appellant be committed to MSH to regain fitness. Appellant's counsel later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that both charges should be dismissed pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-14-221(3)(a). The district court denied the motion to dismiss and later found Appellant fit to proceed. Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty through an Alford plea. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction but remanded the case for the district court to conform its written judgment to the oral pronouncement of Appellant's sentence, holding that Appellant did not demonstrate that she was entitled to have the charges against her dismissed. View "State v. Rich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in this insurance dispute, holding that the district court did not err.Appellants filed a complaint alleging that USAA violated its duty to defend Shawn Conrad, one of USAA's insured policy-holders against whom Appellants had obtained a judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for USAA, concluding that USAA had no duty to defend Conrad because his conduct against Appellants did not fall within the scope of the policy's coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' claims against Conrad were beyond the scope of coverage in USAA's policy; and (2) therefore, USAA did not have a duty to defend Conrad. View "R.S. v. United Services Automobile Ass'n" on Justia Law