Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the post-judgment motions issued by the district court denying Plaintiff's Mont. R. Crim. P. 60(b) motion for relief and Mont. R. Civ. P. 62.1 motion for an indicative ruling, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiff alleged that Defendant entered Plaintiff's property and shot his boat with a rifle. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, and the Supreme Court affirmed. While Plaintiff's appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed the two motions at issue, alleging that he had discovered new evidence. The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's Rule 62.1 motion. View "Moore v. Frost" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of supervisory control reversing an order of the Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court denying Petitioner's motion to substitute the presiding judge, the Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, in the underlying matter, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner was the defendant in the underlying matter. The district court denied Petitioner's motion for substitution of judge, concluding that it was not timely filed in accordance with the statutory filing fee requirement set out in Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804(3). The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Petitioner did not timely file her substitution motion in accordance with the statutory filing fee requirement and therefore declined to exercise supervisory control under the circumstances in this case. View "Lesage v. Twentieth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying BNSF Railway Company summary judgment and entering final judgment in favor of Robert Dannels, holding that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not preempt an injured railroad employee's state law bad faith claims.Dannels was employed by BNSF when he suffered a disabling back and spine injury. Dannels sued BNSF under FELA to recover damages, and the jury returned a verdict in Dannels' favor. Dannels subsequently filed claims for bad faith and punitive damages against BNSF. The district court entered final judgment against BNSF. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the FELA does not preempt a railroad worker's right to seek redress for all bad faith conduct in the adjustment of a claim. View "Dannels v. BNSF" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claim brought under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA) as time-barred, holding that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections (DOC).In granting summary judgment for the DOC, the district court held that since Plaintiff's grievance procedures took longer than 120 days from the date of her termination her claim was untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the limitation period on Plaintiff's WDEA claim was tolled from the time she commenced her grievance until the grievance procedures were exhausted; and (2) excluding the period during which the limitation period was tolled, Plaintiff timely filed her claim within the one-year statute of limitations. View "Shepherd v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the Montana Water Court reversing the order of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) denying Daniel and Sandra DeBuff's amended application for a beneficial water use permit, holding that the application satisfied the statutory criteria for a preliminary determination and may move forward to face objections.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) DNRC did not improperly relied upon either a geologic map or a 1987 final order in making its determination; (2) the Water Court erred by holding that DNRC's determination that the source aquifer was not discontinuous was clearly erroneous; (3) the Water Court correctly determined that DNRC's failure to consider evapotranspiration evidence provided by DeBuff was arbitrary and capricious; and (4) DNRC's determination that the water was not legally available and would have an adverse effect on senior appropriators was arbitrary and capricious. View "Debuff v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in this insurance dispute, holding that the coverage for damage to Plaintiffs' RV was mandated under the plain language of the insurance policy.After Plaintiffs purchased an RV, they purchased a recreational vehicle policy through State Farm. Later, the roof and wall of the RV were damaged. State Farm paid for the roof repair but denied coverage for the wall repair, finding it was not a "covered loss" under the terms of the policy. Plaintiffs then filed this complaint. The Supreme Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the coverage for the wall repair was a covered expense under the plain language of the policy. View "Kaul v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for sexual intercourse without consent (SIWOC) and his sentence of seventy-five years' imprisonment, with twenty-five years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court erred by allowing the presentation of combined expert and lay testimony without providing a cautionary instruction or notice to counsel, (2) the court violated his due process rights by failing to exclude the prosecutor from a hearing regarding defense counsel's representation; and (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review was not warranted for either issue one or issue two; and (2) Defendant failed to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights and granting permanent legal custody, holding that the court's failure to obtain written confirmation of Child's enrollment eligibility directly from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Tribe did not constitute reversible error and the termination of Father's parental rights was not an abuse of discretion.The district court terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f), failure to successfully complete his court-ordered treatment plan combined with lack of likelihood of successful change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the Department did not file a written document from the Tribe confirming Child was not an Indian child, the error was not reversible; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that continuation of the parent-child relationship would result in continued abuse or neglect and that it was in the best interest of Child to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the district court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights under state and federal law.In terminating Mother's parental rights to her child the district court made the additional findings and used the heightened evidentiary standards required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in failing to make specific findings under the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when terminating Mother's parental rights; (2) when it terminated Mother's parental rights under Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609 and 25 U.S.C. 1912; and (3) in terminating Mother's rights under federal and state law. View "Matter of K.L.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company and declaring that ALPS owed no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants in a malpractice suit, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to ALPS.ALPS brought this action seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defendant or indemnify Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson & Gillespie, P.C. (the firm) or any of its members for claims Bryan Sandrock, GG&ME, LLC and DRAES, Inc. (collectively, Sandrock) asserted in a malpractice suit against the firm and three of its attorneys. In granting summary judgment for ALPS, the district court held that the firm's ALPS policy did not provide coverage for Sandrock's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no coverage under the policy because a member of the firm knew the basis of the legal malpractice claim before the effective date of the policy. View "ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Keller" on Justia Law