Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that Dan Cook's last will and testament be confirmed and admitted to probate and that Kim Smith be appointed personal representative of the estate, holding that, although the district court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof to determine the validity of the will, the error was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Smith did not exceed her general power of attorney granted her by Cook when she transferred Cook's money; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Cook had the requisite capacity to enter into a valid marriage with Smith shortly before his death; and (3) while the court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof in determining the validity of Cook's will, the error was harmless because the court's findings of fact were sufficient under the correct burden of proof to support the conclusion that Cook was competent to create and amend a valid will. View "In re Estate of Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Public Service Commission (PSC) rejecting a proposed development of an eighty-megawatt solar energy facility near Billings, Montana, holding that the PSC violated the requirements of the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and state law precluding discrimination against solar energy projects.The district court reversed and remanded the PSC's order setting terms and conditions of MTSUN, LLC's proposed eighty megawatt solar project based on findings of violations of due process, PURPA, and Montana's mini-PURPA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the PSC's determinations were arbitrary and unlawful; and (2) relied on record evidence in determining the existence of a legally-enforceable agreement and the avoided-cost rates. View "MTSUN, LLC v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation" on Justia Law

In a split decision, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's negligent homicide convictions but upheld his convictions on nine counts of criminal endangerment and eleven counts of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Defendant's actions in prescribing narcotics was the cause in fact of the deaths of two of his patients.After a jury trial, Defendant, a licensed medical doctor, was convicted of several crimes related to the repeated prescribing of copious amounts of opiates and other narcotics to eleven individuals. Two of Defendant's patients died from drug overdoses. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the convictions, holding (1) the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant's actions were the direct cause of the two drug overdose deaths; and (2) Defendant was operating outside the bounds of a professional medical practice, and therefore, the exemption for medical practitioners acting within the course of a professional practice did not apply to the facts of this case. View "State v. Christensen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Mont. Code Ann. 46-5-105 prohibits detention center employees who are booking a person into the general population of a detention facility from conducting a visual body cavity search without reasonable suspicion to believe that person is concealing contraband, a weapon, or evidence of the commission of a crime.William Rogers, leading ninety-six named plaintiffs, brought this action challenging the Lewis and Clark County Detention Center policy to conduct an unclothed visual body cavity search of every detainee prior to placement in the general population of the facility as a violation of Mont. Const. art. II, 10 and 11 and Mont. Code Ann. 46-5-105. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to ninety-two of the named plaintiffs and denied the motion as to four plaintiffs who were never placed in the general population of the facility after they were strip searched. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs' diminished privacy interests did not outweigh the legitimate penological interests of the Detention Center; and (2) the plain language of section 46-5-105 unequivocally prohibits suspicionless strip searches of those arrested for minor offenses in any situation. View "Rogers v. Lewis & Clark County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to terminate a 2013 stipulated parental agreement that had afforded Grandparents contact and visitation rights with respect to their grandchild (Child), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court correctly determined that the parties' agreement was a grandparent visitation agreement formed under Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 rather than a parental interest agreement under Mon. Code Ann. 40-4-228; and (2) the district court correctly applied the legal standard for termination of a section 40-9-102 grandparent visitation agreement. View "In re Parenting of K.J.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the district court err and that Father did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred when it allowed the children's guardian ad litem (GAL) to question witnesses at Father's termination hearing, but despite the error, the district court properly terminated Father's parental rights without consideration of the information learned from the GAL's examination of the witnesses; (2) the Department of Public Health and Human Services provided reasonable efforts to reunify Father with the children; (3) the district court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights; (4) the district court did not err in extending temporary legal custody of the children to the Department; and (5) Father did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to indicate how the alleged claim prejudiced his substantial rights. View "In re B.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in favor of AWIN Real Estate, LLC (AWIN) on its claim that Whitehead Homes, Inc. (WHI) breached an investment agreement between the parties and in favor of WHI on an unpled claim that AWIN breached the parties' operating agreement, holding that the court lacked record evidence to award WHI damages for AWIN's breach of the operating agreement.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court's interpretation of the ambiguous language in the investment agreement to hold WHI in breach was reasonable in light of the circumstances of the case; and (2) the district court lacked sufficient evidence to support its award of $55,000 in damages to WHI for AWIN's alleged breach of the operating agreement. The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on attorney's fees consistent with this opinion. View "AWIN Real Estate, LLC v. Whitehead Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a probation search of the room Defendant rented from a person on probation, holding that Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his residence.Defendant rented a room from Parischere Hughes (Paris), who was on misdemeanor probation and subject to probation searches. During a probation search of Paris's residence, law enforcement officers searched Defendant's residence and found drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was charged criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search exceeded the scope of any lawful probation search of Paris's residence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's rights to privacy in his person and residence were not diminished by Paris's probationary status. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellants' complaint and denying Appellants' motion to amend their complaint, holding that Appellants' declaratory judgment claims challenging the constitutionality of Mont. Code Ann. 17-1-512 and amended Mont. Code Ann. 39-71-2320 did not present a justiciable controversy.Appellants sought a declaration that section 17-1-512 and the amended section 39-71-2320 violated several provisions of the United States and Montana Constitutions. Appellants further sought a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement and authorization of the statutes. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants' declaratory judgment claims challenging the constitutionality of section 17-1-512 and amended section 39-71-2320 did not present a justiciable controversy. View "Moody's Market, Inc. v. Montana State Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying the petition filed by the City of Bozeman seeking judicial review of a final order of the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) granting Utility Solutions, LLC's application to change a water right, holding that the court did not err in determining that the City's water facility plan did not qualify as an interest protectable from adverse effects under Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-402(2)(a).Utility Solutions filed its change application for authorization to change the place of use of its water use permit. The City filed an objection, arguing that the application would adversely affect the City's possessory interest in the area that was established by the City's adoption of a growth policy, as expanded geographically by an updated water facility plan. The DNRC hearing examiner granted the change application, concluding that although the change application resulted in a geographic overlap of the place of use with the City's water facility plan, the overlap did not result in an adverse effect within the meaning of section 85-2-402(2)(a). The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the DNRC's determination that Utility Solutions carried its burden to prove the City did not have an interest protectable from adverse effects. View "City of Bozeman v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law