Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that Father's due process rights were infringed by ineffective assistance of counsel, and because of counsel's ineffective assistance, Father was prejudiced and his parental rights were terminated.In arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel as it related to placement of the children and his stipulation to a treatment plan, Father pointed out that he was the non-offending, non-custodial parent and that there were no allegations of abuse or neglect ever brought in this case against him. Father asserted that but forms counsel's failure to correct legal misunderstandings, failure to object to an unnecessary treatment plan, and failure to request a placement hearing, his parental rights would not have been terminated. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the Montana Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division did not prove the existence of good cause to deny immediate placement with Father; and (2) Father's fundamental rights were prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. View "In re B.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to self-representation by refusing his request to represent himself at an omnibus hearing but otherwise allowing Defendant to represent himself for the duration of his case; and (2) correctly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant a new trial after the court considered the victim's post-trial recantations and the evidence of Defendant's guilt produced at trial. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed a $35 million jury verdict in favor of Alexis Nunez on her claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses were negligent as a matter of law when they failed to notify authorities of a 2004 child abuse report her uncle Peter McGowan made to a church elder alleging that Peter's stepfather had sexually abused him as a child, holding that the Jehovah's Witnesses were excused from reporting by Montana's mandatory child abuse reporting statute, Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-201.Alexis, a victim of abuse by Reyes, sued the church in 2016 alleging that the Jehovah's Witnesses violated the state statute by failing to report Reyes's abuse of Peter. A jury awarded Alexis $4 million in actual damages and $31 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Jehovah's Witnesses' established doctrine and practice required elders to keep Peter's disclosure confidential, and therefore, the Jehovah's Witnesses were excepted from the mandatory reporting statute. View "Nunez v. Watchtower" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of burglary, theft, and violating an order of protection, holding that Defendant waived his right to be present at all critical stages of his criminal proceedings and that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant did not unequivocally assert his right to represent himself.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court denied his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage of his criminal proceedings when it held a hearing in his absence and without defense counsel and denied him the right to represent himself when he unequivocally waived his right to counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing; and (2) substantial evidence existed to support the district court's determination that Defendant did not intend to represent himself, and therefore, the district court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to do so. View "State v. Marquart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the negative a question certified to it by a federal district court regarding tension in case law between an insurer's duty to a third-party claimant and its duty to its insured.As a result of an accident caused by High County Paving, Inc., one person died and another was critically injured. United Fire & Casualty Co., High County's insurer, advance-paid the medical expenses of the injured parties prior to a final settlement. High County argued that any further payments to the injured parties without obtaining a release for High County would violate United Fire's duties to High Country, as general damages are not a type of damages that are required to be advance-paid to an injured third party. United Fire argued it was required to tender a payment of policy limits to the injured parties without a release for High Country because total damages exceeded policy limits. The Supreme Court held that an insurer does not breach its duty to its insured when it pays policy limits to an injured third party, without a release for its insured, after a motor vehicle accident when both liability for the accident is reasonably clear and it is reasonably clear that total damages caused by the insured exceed policy limits. View "High Country Paving v. United Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding attorney's fees to two media organizations after they secured for public release the names of three Billings police officers who were disciplined for having sexual relations with a city clerk, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making a statutory award of fees.The Billings Gazette ran a story reporting that three City police officers had been suspended without pay for having sex on City property. Each of the three officers filed a separate motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking protection of his identity. The district court issued the TROs. The media companies sought a declaration that the public's right to know clearly outweighed the alleged privacy interests the officers asserted and requested attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 2-3-221. The district court ordered release of the officers' identities and granted the media companies' request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion in awarding fees and costs. View "City of Billings v. Billings Gazette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Montana Independent Living Project (MILP) and granting the Montana Department of Transportation's (MDOT) motion for summary judgment in this case concerning the disbursement of Transportation Assistance for the Elderly and Disabled (TransADE) funds, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment to MDOT.The TransADE program provides operating assistance for bus transportation to state agencies serving elderly and disabled persons. MDOT was authorized to administer the TransADE program and award special revenue grants using guidelines established in the State Management Plan (Plan). MILP, a nonprofit organization that provides transportation services for the elderly and disabled, submitted a proposal to offer weekend transportation services for elderly and disabled citizens in the Helena area. MDOT, however, awarded the general 2018 TransADE grant to the City of Helena. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mont. Code Ann. 7-14-112 constitutionally delegates legislative authority to MDOT by authorizing the funds consistent with the Plan; (2) the Plan's policies and procedures are not subject to rulemaking procedures; (3) in adopting the Plan, MDOT met its constitutional requirements; and (4) the Legislature's authorization of disbursement of TransADE funds does not violate Mont. Const. art. VII, 12. View "Independent Living v. State, Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Daughters' motion to invalidate parts of Father's will in probate proceedings, holding that Daughters' claim was not properly brought in the probate proceedings.When Father died his property was devised by will to Son. In the probate proceedings, Daughters moved to invalidate parts of the will, claiming that the will contravened a prior marital property settlement agreement between Father and his ex-wife. The district court denied the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the separation agreement while sitting in probate. View "In re Estate of Cooney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to Child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights to Child.Specifically, the Court held (1) Mother was afforded fundamentally fair procedures comporting with her constitutional due process rights when the district court terminated her parental rights; and (2) while the district court determined that Child was "abused or neglected" prior to terminating Mother's parental rights there was substantial and credible evidence in the record to support the district court's finding that Mother's circumstances remained unchanged following her prior terminations. View "In re C.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering restitution after convicting Defendant of embezzling money from her employer, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's due process rights when it did not hold an evidentiary hearing before ordering her to pay restitution.The State charged Defendant with theft of property by embezzlement, alleging that Defendant stole more than $7,000 from her employer. The jury found Defendant guilty. The State sought restitution for the amount Defendant stole and for expenses her employer incurred investigating and assisting in the prosecution. The district court entered an order requiring Defendant to pay restitution. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court abused her due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve a due process challenge to the lack of an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Johns" on Justia Law