Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing pending abuse and neglect proceedings and placing Mother's two children with Father, their non-custodial parent, holding that the district court did not err.After the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division filed a petition for adjudication of child as youth in need of care and temporary legal custody the district court adjudicated the children as youths in need of care. The district court subsequently entered an order placing the children in the custody of Father and dismissed the abuse and neglect proceedings without prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by dismissing the abuse and neglect proceedings and placing the children with Father pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-438(3)(d). View "In re J.S.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting various mortgage lenders and trustees summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that genuine issues of material fact did not preclude summary judgment.Plaintiff filed an action asserting negligent loan supervision/administration, breach of the implied contract covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatory declaratory judgment, and quiet title to mortgaged property. The district court granted summary judgment to Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting BOA summary judgment on Plaintiff's asserted negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. View "House v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court reversing a Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) contested case decision granting RC Resources, Inc. (RCR) a beneficial water use permit under pertinent provisions of the Montana Water Use Act (MWUA) - Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-301(1), -302(1), and -311 - holding that the district court erred.The permit at issue would have authorized RCR to annually appropriate 857 acre-feet of groundwater that will flow into the underground adits and works of the proposed Rock Creek Mine. Based on its construction of Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-311(1)(a)(ii)(B), the district court reversed the issuance of the beneficial use permit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) DNRC correctly concluded that, as used in section 85-2-311(1)(a)(ii), "legal demands" does not include consideration of whether the subject use complies with applicable Montana Water Quality Act nondegradation standards; and (2) section 85-2-311(2) does not violate the right to a clean and healthful environment as applied to the objectors' MWQA nondegradation objections to the proposed MWUA beneficial use permit. View "Clark Fork Coalition v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict that Travis Elbert was not negligent when he struck Diane Wenger with his vehicle as she was crossing Main Street in East Helena after dark, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling in limine to limit witness testimony on Montana statutes or on ultimate legal conclusions; (2) publication of Wenger's irrelevant, private health information to the jury was improperly allowed, but Defendant was not entitled to a trial trial on this basis; and (3) any potential error by the district court in prohibiting Wenger from arguing an approved jury instruction in closing was harmless. View "Wenger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this dispute between Cascade County and the Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board regarding reimbursement for the cost of remediating petroleum contamination at the County's shop complex the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court on judicial review, holding that the district court erred in remanding the case to the Board to address issues the Board rejected.The Board concluded that the County was time barred from recovery by Mont. Code Ann. 27-2-231. The district court concluded that the Board erred when it relied on section 27-2-231 because the procedure for reimbursement is provided in Mont. Code Ann. 75-11-309. The court, however, remanded the case to the Board for further fact-finding. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that section 27-2-231 did not time bar the County from submitting additional applications for eligibility to the Board; and (2) the district court erred in remanding the case to the Board to rule on the issues it rejected in its final decision. View "Cascade Co. v. Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a net five-year suspended term of commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections and a $15,000 fine for her convictions for felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, holding that the district court erred in imposing the fine.The fine at issue included the maximum $5,000 fine on criminal possession of dangerous drugs (CPDD) and an additional $10,000 for the thirty-five percent market value fine mandated by Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-130(1). The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the statutory presumption that a defendant is entitled to a deferred imposition of sentence on a first-offense CPDD; but (2) erred in imposing the fine required by section 45-9-130(1) without a qualifying basis on the trial evidence and without consideration of the factors specified in Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-213(3). View "State v. Wilkes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court upholding a hearing officer's conclusion that Montana State University-North (MSU-N) retaliated against Dr. Randy Bachmeier for reporting and pursuing a claim of sexual harassment against his supervisor, holding that the district court erred in reinstating the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision in this matter.The hearing officer's original order concluded that Bachmeier failed to demonstrate that his supervisor sexually harassed him but that MSU-N retaliated against Bachmeier. The HRC rejected the hearing officer's conclusion that Bachmeier was discriminated against, upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion, and remanded the case. The hearing officer issued a second decision concluding that Bachmeier had been sexually harassed. The Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC) then issued a final agency decision reducing the damages award for sexual harassment but leaving untouched the retaliation award. The district court voided the hearing officer's second decision and remanded with instructions to reinstate the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion by concluding that the HRC did not have the authority to modify the hearing officer's first decision; and (2) correctly upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion. View "Montana State University-Northern v. Bachmeier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence and in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that he was on a "way of this state open to the public" because he was found by a police officer in a vehicle that was parked in a permitted parking spot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to assess whether the parking space at issue was adapted and fitted for public travel and in common use by the public, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Krause" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court establishing the point of diversion for two claims owned by Carolyn Mack and Chriss Mack, holding that the Water Court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court (1) did not err when it concluded that it had jurisdiction over the Macks' amended statement of claim; (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Macks did not make any judicial admissions in previous litigation; (3) did not err in assigning the burden of proof to Appellants - Glenda, Jimmy, John, and Rowdy Anderson; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Andersons' expert witness. Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that there was substantial evidence supporting the Water Court's conclusion establishing the point of diversion for the Macks' claims. View "Mack v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of incest, holding that the district court did not err by precluding Defendant from introducing extrinsic evidence to challenge the victim's credibility.On appeal, Defendant argued that his defense was prejudiced because he was prohibited from demonstrating the victim's bias or motive to testify falsely and that the court's evidentiary ruling violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Mont. Const. art. II, 24. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not misapply the rules or abuse its discretion in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion by imposing reasonable limits on Defendant's evidentiary inquiries. View "State v. Quinlan" on Justia Law