Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and declining to award attorney fees to either party, holding that the district court did not err.The owners of certain condominium units brought this action against the condominium owner after the developer unilaterally amended the condominium declaration to create a new homeowners' association to which new unit owners would belong, thus leaving existing unit owners in the original homeowners' association. The developer subsequently revoked the amendment to the declaration. The district court dismissed the case as moot. The court then refused to award attorney fees, ruling that neither party was a prevailing party. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the case as moot and did not err in refusing to award attorney fees and costs. View "Heringer v. Barnegat Development Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Montana Republican Party and denying the motion for summary judgment filed by the Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP) in this campaign finance complaint, holding that the district court did not err in determining that COPP lacked authority to issue a subpoena for production of documents.The Montana Democratic Party filed a campaign finance complaint with COPP alleging that the Montana Republican Party had failed to comply with statutory reporting and disclosure requirements. As part of its investigation, COPP issued a subpoena for production of documents, commanding the Republican Party to produce specified documents relating to campaign practices and expenditures. COPP issued the subpoena pursuant to the authority of Mont. Code Ann. 13-37-111. The district court granted summary judgment to the Republican Party, concluding that section 13-37-111 did not confer COPP with the authority to issue subpoenas for documents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err. View "Commissioner of Political Practices v. Republican Party" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for three felony counts of privacy in communications, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), holding that there were no prejudicial errors in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the Privacy in Communications statute, Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213(1)(a), is not facially overbroad, nor does it constitute a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the "freedom of speech" clauses of the Montana and United States Constitutions; (2) the district court correctly interpreted the Privacy in Communications statute; (3) there was insufficient evidence to conclude that there was jurisdiction when the threatening communication was made to a person located outside of Montana; and (4) the district court fully and fairly instructed the jury in accordance with the charges and evidence presented. View "State v. Lamoureux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment compelling Plaintiffs to survey a roadway easement adjudicated by a previous declaratory judgment in 2016 and denying their motion for clarification, holding that the court erred in failing to clarify the 2016 judgment and subject easement on the motion for clarification.In this long-running dispute over a private roadway, Plaintiffs challenged a district court order compelling them to survey a roadway easement adjudicated in 2016 by declaratory judgment, denying their motion for clarification of a subsequently discovered ambiguity between the metes and bounds description and accompanying map depiction of an easement in the underlying 1987 grant, and rescinding prior awards of attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erroneously failed to construe the 1987 stipulation, 2016 judgment, and resulting law of the case and thus erred in failing to clarify the 2016 judgment and subject easement on Plaintiffs' motion for clarification. View "VanBuskirk v. Gehlen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Erik Miller was justified when he used deadly force against Nicholas Tyson Frazier, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Frazier, who was suicidal, was shot by Miller, a police officer, in his home after he pointed his gun at the Miller. The Estate brought this complaint against Miller alleging assault, wrongful death, negligence, and a violation of Frazier's rights under the Montana Constitution. The district court entered judgment in favor of Miller, holding that Miller's use of force was justified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by refusing to submit a separate constitutional tort theory to the jury; (2) the special verdict form clearly and fairly presented the jury with the ultimate questions of fact; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to record all sidebar discussions of evidentiary objections. View "Estate of Frazier v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding temporary guardianship of Carol Merideth's two stepchildren to their maternal grandparents, Diana and Kenneth Merideth, holding that the district court did not err.After the children's father died, Diana and Kenneth filed a petition for guardianship and requesting an emergency order for temporary guardianship. The district court appointed Diana and Kenneth temporary guardians. That same day, Carol filed a petition seeking temporary guardianship and conservatorship. The district court entered an order appointing temporary guardians and conservators, determining it was in the children's best interests to appoint Diana and Kenneth as their temporary guardians and conservators. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the children's mother consented to appointment of Diana and Kenneth and the district court found that the appointment was in the children's best interests the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "In re Guardianship of J.S.M." on Justia Law