Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the district court lifting its stay of execution of Defendant's sentence during his appeal and re-imposing the sentence, holding that the district court lacked the authority to impose the sentence after the State's delay in seeking to execute the sentence.The district court convicted Defendant for a first offense driving under the influence (DUI) conviction and sentenced him to six months with all but twenty-four hours suspended. The court stayed execution of the sentencing during Defendant's appeal. When Defendant's conviction was affirmed, the district court issued notice of remittitur to the parties. Eight months later, the State moved to lift the stay and require Defendant to serve his sentence. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentence expired before the State sought to enforce its terms and conditions, and therefore, the State could no longer execute the terms of the sentence; and (2) the district court correctly convicted Defendant of DUI. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Western Montana Community Health Center (WMMHC) and dismissing Plaintiff's claim brought under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA), Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-901 - 915, holding that the district court's grant of summary judgment was not an abuse of discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) WMMHC satisfied its burden to demonstrate that it had legitimate business reasons constituting good cause for terminating Plaintiff as program manager; (2) Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the reason for the termination was false or arbitrary; and (3) WMMHC met its burden of demonstrating that it did not violate the express provisions of its written personnel policies. View "Buckley v. Western Community Mental Health Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the sentence imposed on Defendant after she was convicted for criminal possession of dangerous drugs (CPDD) and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia (CPDP), holding that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Defendant.The district court sentenced Defendant to four years with the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), all for years suspended for the CPDD conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by sentencing her to a suspended sentence after determining that the State presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption in favor of a deferred sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 49-9-102(4). The Supreme Court agreed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred by sentencing Defendant to a four-year suspended sentence instead of deferring imposition of sentence. View "State v. Doubek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that a Fergus County road was private because Public Land/Water Access Association, Inc. (PLWA) had not proven the existence of a public road by prescriptive easement or petition, holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court applied the correct legal standard for its review, the "record as a whole" standard set forth in Reid v. Park County, 627 P.2d 1210 (Mont. 1981); and (2) the district did not err in concluding that the disputed road was not a public road either by prescriptive easement or statutory methods. View "Public Land & Water Access Ass'n v. Robbins" on Justia Law

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