Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal challenging a criminal sentence the Supreme Court remanded for entry of an amended judgment, holding that Defendant was entitled to twenty-two days credit for twenty-two days he served in Silver Bow County.In 2016, Defendant pled guilty to possession of dangerous drugs in Deer Lodge County. Defendant served a total of sixty-one days in Deer Lodge County custody prior to his release. In 2017, Defendant was arrested for possession of dangerous drugs in Cascade County and, separately, was charged with forgery in Silver Bow County Justice Court. The Cascade County District Court sentenced Defendant on the possession of dangerous drugs charge and ordered his release. Defendant was then transferred to Silver Bow County. The district court imposed a five-year commitment on the possession of dangerous drugs charge. The court gave Defendant credit for the sixty-one days he was detained in the Deer Lodge County jail and denied his request for additional credit for time served while he was incarcerated in Cascade County and Silver Bow County. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that Defendant should have been credited with twenty-two days served in Silver Bow County custody. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of the City of Missoula declaring that a city ordinance was not prohibited under Montana law, holding that the district court erred by concluding that the City may require background checks on firearm transfers without violating the statutory prohibition upon local government regulation of the "purchase, sale or other transfer" of firearms.In 2016, the City of Missoula, a self-governing municipality, adopted Ordinance 3581, which imposed a requirement upon persons purchasing or otherwise receiving a firearm in the City to pass a national instant background check. The Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that cities with self-government powers were prohibited by Montana law from enforcing a local regulation or ordinance requiring background checks of firearm sales or transfers. The City filed this action challenging the Attorney General's opinion and seeking a declaration that the ordinance was lawful. The district court concluded that the ordinance was authorized under the statutory exception in Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-351(2) and entered summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the express statutory prohibition upon cities in section 45-8-351(1) is a limitation on the City's self-governing powers. View "City of Missoula v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Bozeman, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-114 does not provide an implied private right of action for judicial enforcement of the Montana Water Use Act.Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the City was in violation of the Act due to unpermitted water use and seeking injunctive relief and attorney fees. The City filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the Act does not create a private right of action for enforcement through injunctive relief, nor does it create a private right of action. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that section 85-2-114, which allows for judicial enforcement of the Act, doesn't support an implied private right of action for enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the provisions of section 85-2-114 preclude the possibility that the Act provides an implied private right of enforcement of the Act. View "Lyman Creek, LLC v. City of Bozeman" on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, holding that the district court correctly denied Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and her motion for a new trial.Plaintiff sued Dr. Robert Replogle and Spineology, alleging that Dr. Replogle did not obtain her informed consent for surgery because he did not disclose his financial interest in Spineology to her. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Replogle, finding that the was not negligent in either obtaining Plaintiff's informed consent or the way he performed surgery. Thereafter, the district court denied Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a reasonable mind could accept the testimony presented at trial that Dr. Replogle was not required to disclose his financial interest in Spineology to obtain Plaintiff's informed consent prior to surgery; and (2) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict, and neither reversal of that verdict nor a new trial was warranted. View "Howard v. Replogle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of criminal endangerment, holding that the court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of Defendant's prior criminal endangerment conviction.Defendant was convicted of criminal endangerment after he purchased a half-gallon of eighty-proof whiskey for a teenager who drank it and suffered near-fatal consequences. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding (1) given the circumstances, a rational jury could have concluded from the evidence that Defendant actually knew there was a substantial risk associated with purchasing a half-gallon of whiskey for a teenager; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of Defendant's prior criminal endangerment conviction, and Defendant was entitled to a new trial. View "State v. Fleming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that Appellant failed to prove a set of facts in support of his claim.While detained in jail, Appellant filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus requesting that the district court drop all felony criminal convictions against him on the alleged grounds that the State had no jurisdiction because Appellant was an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenani Tribes (CSKT) and committed a crime within the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Appellant argued that the application of Public Law 83-230 (PL-280) by the State was improper and has never been consented to by the CSKT. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's argument that PL-280 was never properly consented to by the CSKT is incorrect; (2) the State properly enacted its enabling legislation under PL-280; and (3) PL-280 and the State's application of PL-280 to the CSKT did not violate the 1855 Hellgate Treaty. View "Lozeau v. Anciaux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of incest, holding that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear during deliberations portions of a victim's taped forensic interview after those portions of the interview had been played to the jury during trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it played portions of the victim's forensic interview two times to the jury - at trial and during jury deliberations. Specifically, Defendant argued that the court erred when it allowed the jury to hear the interview without first isolating the jury's difficulty concerning the evidence. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to isolate the jury's difficulty during deliberations before allowing the jury to watched portions of the video testimony in the jury room and that the error resulted in prejudice to Defendant. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' request to recover assets for the Estate of Edward M. Boland and imposing sanctions on the basis that the allegations of bias made against the court against it by Appellants were frivolous, holding that the district court did not err.This appeal arose from two cases involving the same underlying probate of the Estate. In this consolidated appeal, Appellants - Paul Boland and Mary Gettel, as heirs of the Estate - challenged the court's response to their bias allegations, the order imposing sanctions, and the sanctions imposed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants were not entitled to a hearing on their petition for order to recover assets; (2) the district court correctly concluded that the allegations of bias made against it were frivolous; (3) the district court did not err by imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Paul and his attorney; and (4) this was a proper case in which to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal. View "In re Estate of Boland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the Department of Public Health and Human Services had made reasonable efforts to help Mother, Mother had not complied with her treatment plan, and the condition rendering Mother unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother had failed to complete most of her treatment plan, that the treatment plan was appropriate, and that Mother had failed to complete it and her unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court then ordered termination of Mother's rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the department made reasonable efforts to help Mother complete her treatment plan and that the district court's did not err by terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court distributing assets from the Estate of Della L. Ankrum and the Harold Ankrum Trust to Della and Harold's three children, holding that the district court correctly interpreted Della's handwritten codicil as a wish and not a specific devise of her stock in Ankrum Trucking to Stewart Ankrum.Before Harold's death in 1993, Harold and Della executed identical wills under which the assets of the first spouse to die would go into a trust with the assets distributed equally between their three children upon the death of the surviving spouse. During the couple's lifetimes they created and grew Ankrum Trucking. At issue in this appeal was whether a handwritten codicil to Della's will found after her death made a specific devise of Ankrum Trucking shares to Stewart, one of the couple's children. The district court concluded that the language of the codicil was a wish on the part of Della and not a testamentary transfer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly interpreted Della's codicil as lacking in testamentary intent to specifically devise her shares of Ankrum Trucking to Stewart. View "In re Harold Ankrum Trust Administration & Estate of Della L. Ankrum" on Justia Law