Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Central Montana Medical Center (CCMC) and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging wrongful termination and violation of Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-904(1)(b) and (c) of the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act, holding that the district court did not err.In granting summary judgment in favor of CCMC and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the district court determined that CMMC terminated Plaintiff's employment for good cause and that CMMC did not violate its express written policies when it terminated Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and CMMC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Putnam v. Central Montana Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony sexual assault, holding that the court did not err by denying Defendant's for-cause challenge of a prospective juror.During voir dire, defense counsel moved to remove Juror G. for cause based on her responses to the question of whether jurors would be inclined to believe a child witness's testimony regarding sexual abuse. The district court denied the motion, and defense counsel subsequently used a peremptory challenge to remove Juror G. The jury found Defendant guilty of sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that because Juror G.'s voir dire statements evinced an inability to act with impartiality and without prejudice toward Defendant the district court erred by denying Defendant's for-cause challenge of Juror G. View "State v. Ghostbear" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to strike a prior conviction for purposes of enhancing Appellant's DUI charge to a felony, holding that the district court did not err by relying on a 1990 Texas DWI conviction for purposes of enhancing Appellant's penalty.Appellant pled guilty to felony DUI and other offenses. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to strike his prior conviction, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that the State provided competent proof of his 1990 Texas DWI conviction because Defendant's National Crime Information criminal record report did not also include information about a sentence or judgment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State provided competent proof of the Texas conviction under application of the presumption of regularity, which Appellant did not rebut. View "State v. Holder" on Justia Law

In this action brought against BNSF Railway Company due to its alleged involvement with the asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Montana Asbestos Claims Court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the issues of preemption, strict liability, and non-party affirmative defenses, holding that BNSF was protected from strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts, 521, for some of its actions.After it was discovered that asbestos contaminated materials were shipped through the BNSF railyard and spilled into the soil in Libby for decades Plaintiffs sued BNSF. The Asbestos Court concluded that BNSF was strictly liable because its actions were abnormally dangerous and BNSF could not present evidence of non-party conduct to negate causation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court properly found that Plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by federal law; (2) while BNSF was subject to strict liability, it was protected from strict liability for its actions determined to be taken pursuant to its statutory public duty, and for those actions, it is subject only to claims for ordinary negligence; and (3) the court did not err in finding that BNSF could not use evidence of non-party conduct to refute causation. View "BNSF Railway Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court upholding the ruling of the municipal court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause the criminal trespass charge against him, holding that the municipal court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss.Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass to property for entering the fenced backyard of a residence during the night. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court affirmed, concluding that the residential backyard came within the definition of "premises" in the Criminal Code as "any type of structure or building and real property," which did not to be posted to deny a privilege to enter. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the legislature intended to impose a requirement upon property owners in residential neighborhoods to post notice in order to deny or revoke a privilege to enter their property. View "City of Bozeman v. Lehrer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony DUI, disorderly conduct, and driving with a suspended license, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his unpreserved claim that the district court violated his fundamental right to be present when it discuss with counsel in his absence the potential substitution of an alternate juror.During trial, the trial was continued and the jury was excused. Several days later when the trial resumed a juror failed to appear. The court met with counsel to discuss the juror's absence, but counsel did not object to Defendant's absence. The court decided not to substitute an alternate juror, and the trial resumed that day after the juror arrived. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. On appeal, Defendant argued that by holding the conversations regarding the absent juror in his absence the district court violated his right to be present. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the violation of Defendant's right to be present did not result in a miscarriage of justice or call the fundamental fairness of his trial into question. View "State v. George" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth offense, a felony under Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-401, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss.On appeal, Defendant argued that his Montana conviction for felony DUI was erroneous because it was based on previous DUI convictions from Alaska in 2003, 2007, 2009 under an Alaska statute that was dissimilar to Montana's DUI statute. Therefore, Defendant argued that the three prior Alaska DUI convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses for felony enhancement under Mont. Code Ann. 61-8-731(1). The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court properly determined that Defendant's prior convictions under Alaska's DUI statute required a "similar" standard of impairment to Montana's DUI statute, and therefore, Defendant's three prior Alaska DUI convictions qualified as predicate offenses for enhancement purposes under Montana's felony DUI statute. View "State v. Lund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict and subsequent judgment and sentence issued by the district court convicting Defendant of misdemeanor criminal trespass and felony criminal mischief resulting from Defendant unlawfully entering a pipeline facility and damaging the pipeline's property, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's request to assert the common law defense of necessity or in refusing Defendant's necessity defense instructions because the common law defense of necessity was not available to Defendant under the circumstances of this case; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict as to the criminal mischief charge; and (3) did not err in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,755.47. View "State v. Higgins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Water Court closing certification case, holding that the Water Court did not err in its rulings.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court did not err (1) in its determination of the water rights claims that had historically used the Gibson-Reinig Ditch and the characteristics of those rights; (2) by creating a junior implied claim to account for the parties' historic use of the capacity of the Gibson-Reinig Ditch; (3) in its determination of the priority date for claim 97014-00; (4) by finding that the unauthorized water use by David and Teri Hoon and Betty and Gary Murphy was irrelevant to the proceedings; and (5) by separately decreeing the interest of Michael and Lisa Bay. View "Hoon v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court certifying three classes of more than 30,000 ratepayers of the City of Billings who challenged certain franchise fees that the City imposed on water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal services, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it certified the classes.After the City ceased imposing the franchise fees in 2018 the Ratepayers sued the City alleging that the fees constituted unlawful sales taxes. Ratepayers brought claims for breach of contract and constitutional due process violations. The Ratepayers sought class action certification for those similarly situated persons who paid the water and wastewater fees since 2010 and the sold waste disposal fees since 2012. The district court granted the motion and certified three classes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it certified the classes under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). View "Houser v. City of Billings" on Justia Law