Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Griz One Firefighting, LLC's petition for judicial review of a default order and determination by the Department of Labor and Industry Wage and Hour Division (DLI) and awarding Matthew Sean West $11,241 in back wages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees, holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not clearly err when it concluded that DLI notified Griz One of West's wage claim; (2) Griz One was not entitled to relief on its due process and jurisdictional arguments; (3) the district court was correct in concluding that Mont. R. Evid. 605 does not apply to a DLI compliance specialist; and (4) the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to West was reasonable and based on competent evidence. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the district court for a determination of West's costs and fees on appeal. View "Griz One Firefighting v. State Department of Labor & Industry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's deferred sentence for criminal endangerment, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Defendant's deferred sentence after he failed to report to his probation officer for five months.Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal endangerment. The district court sentenced Defendant to five years' incarceration, with all time suspended, and imposed standard conditions of probation. The State later filed a petition to revoke Defendant's sentence, alleging that Defendant violated four conditions of his suspended sentence. The district court found that Defendant committed the violations alleged in the State's petition to revoke and imposed a five-year commitment with two years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Defendant's deferred sentence. View "State v. Fjelsted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of his suspended sentence by the district court, holding that the district court's sentence revocation was supported by sufficient evidence that Defendant had violated the conditions of supervision by engaging in a new criminal offense.Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child. After completing the unsuspended portion of his sentence Defendant was released to serve the suspended portion of his sentence. Later, the county attorney filed a petition for revocation of Defendant's suspended sentence, alleging that Defendant had violated a condition of probation. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had committed non-compliance violations of the probationary conditions of his sentence. The court then revoked Defendant's sentence and resentenced him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by determining that Defendant violated a sentencing condition by committing sexual abuse of children. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing K&J Investments, LLC's petition and complaint for judicial review, rescission, and unjust enrichment against the Flathead County Board of Commissioners and Flathead County Treasurer, holding that the district court properly dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction.K&J, an investment company, purchased a tax sale certificate from Flathead County for the property at issue for $1,512. K&J later filed an application for refund and abatement due to alleged erroneous property assessments. The Flathead County Board of Commissioners denied the application. K&J filed a petition for judicial review seeking to reverse the Commissioners' denial of tax refund and abatement and including a complaint for rescission of the tax sale certificate and seeking relief for all taxes paid under a theory of unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the petition and complaint, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because K&J did not follow the required process for seeking reassessment and exhausting administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-16-604 did not grant the district court authority to consider K&J's claims. View "K & J Investments, LLC v. Flathead County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's imposition of certain conditions on Defendant's sentence and reversed the court's determination that Defendant must pay the costs of his public defender, holding that the district court erred.Defendant pled guilty sexual assault and evidence tampering. In sentencing Defendant, the district court imposed conditions limiting Defendant's ability to possess a phone, a computer, or access to the internet. The district court further ordered Defendant to pay the cost of his public defender without conducting a meaningful inquiry into his ability to pay such expense. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the sentencing conditions were overbroad insofar as they completely restricted Defendant's ability to access the internet and certain electronic devices; and (2) the district court erred in ordering Defendant to pay the cost of his public defender without conducting a meaningful inquiry into his ability to pay. View "State v. Hotchkiss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff's claim alleging breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that the district court properly concluded that there was no dispute of material fact and that Defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.Bar 11 Enterprises, LLC, a company created by Deschamps, entered into a gravel pit sublease agreement with FarWest Rock Products. Mining operations later ceased, Bar 11 was dissolved, and Deschamps received notice of termination of lease. Deschamps filed a complaint, listing himself and Bar 11 as plaintiffs. Thereafter, Deschamps filed articles of organization to create a business entity named Bar 11 Enterprises, LLC. The district court dismissed all claims based on a lack of standing by both Deschamps and Bar 11. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that (1) the Bar 11 entity named as a party to this suit was not the same as the original Bar 11 that entered into the disputed agreement with Farwest Products; (2) Deschamps lacked standing to sue in his personal capacity; and (3) Defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. View "Deschamps v. Farwest Rock, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Defendant, holding that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and was presumptively prejudiced by the delay.The State filed an information charging Defendant with burglary and theft of more than $800. Nearly five years after his arrest Defendant had still not been brought to trial. Defendant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the five-year delay violated his right to a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Defendant, holding that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Chambers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and to dismiss the charges against him, holding that an officer has a lawful right of access to reach into a vehicle and seize plainly visible contraband observed by the officer during a lawful traffic stop.Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to exclude the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and to dismiss the charges, arguing that the deputy sheriff's warrantless seizure of a plastic bag found on Defendant's lap was unlawful. The district court denied the motion. Defendant then pled guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the officer's warrantless seizure of the bag was not unlawful because the officer was lawfully present next to Defendant's truck during the traffic stop, could plainly see readily apparent contraband fall onto Defendant's lap, and had a lawful right of access to that contraband. View "State v. Tenold" on Justia Law

In this termination of parental rights matter, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the district court's order, holding that the court abused its discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights without a conclusive determination of her two children's tribal membership status and enrollment eligibility with the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians tribe.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred by terminating Mother's parental rights in the absence of a conclusive tribal determination regarding the children's status as Indian children of the United Keetoowah tribe; (2) the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunite Mother with her children; and (3) the district court did not err by determining that the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit, unable, or unwilling to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court remanded the case to allow the tribe to make a conclusive determination regarding the children's membership and enrollment eligibility. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's felony conviction of criminal possession with intent to distribute, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the State was not required to disclose the identity of its confidential informant.After Defendant was charged, he moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the State had failed to disclose the confidential informant's identity within the discovery timeframe. The district court summarily denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, declining to require disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. Defendant pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law