Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Whitefish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. (the Congregation) had a valid, enforceable easement across the property owned by Giuseppe and Jamie Caltabiano and granting a permanent injunction prohibiting the Caltabianos from interfering with the Congregation's use of the easement, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it considered extrinsic evidence and found an easement in favor of the Congregation; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it entered a permanent injunction prohibiting the Caltabianos from interfering with the Congregation's access to its property from Lion Mountain Road; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to award the Congregation attorney fees. View "Whitefish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Caltabiano" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and dismissing Plaintiff's claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and negligence, holding that Wells Fargo did not breach the deed of trust and that Plaintiff's remaining claims presented no genuine issue of material fact.Wells Fargo assumed service of a loan obtained by Plaintiff, who executed a deed of trust with certain property serving as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff failed to pay property taxes assessed to Lot 3, which included the property. Wells Fargo paid the taxes on the entirety of Lot 3 and required Plaintiff to repay those taxes. Plaintiff later brought this suit. The district court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, reasoning that the deed of trust's unambiguous language permitted Wells Fargo to pay Lot 3's taxes in full. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the deed of trust, Wells Fargo did not breach of the contract by paying the delinquent taxes on lot 3 and requiring Plaintiff to repay those taxes; and (2) because Wells Fargo did not breach the deed of trust, it likewise did not violate a duty owed to Plaintiff under the deed of trust, and as such Plaintiff's remaining claims were properly dismissed. View "Graham-Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the Department of Labor and Industry's Office of Administrative Hearings on Elizabeth Mays' wage claim against Sam's Inc., holding the district court's judgment was without error.Mays filed a wage claim against Sam's with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, alleging that she was misclassified as an independent contract and was owed to employment wages for the hours she worked. After the Independent Contractor Central Unit determined that Mays was an employee the Wage and Hour Unit determined that Mays was owed $33.43 in wages. The district court reversed the agency's determinations that Sam's was entitled to an offset for Mays' tips and that Sam's was not required to pay a penalty. Mays appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court's order constituted a final order in a contested case for which judicial review was available; (2) the district court did not err by affirming the agency's determination of the terms of Mays' employment; and (3) the district court did not err by affirming the agency's finding that Sam's was not obligated to reimburse Mays for fees. View "Wage Claim of Mays v. Sam's Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of felony sexual assault, holding that counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to an instruction that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law because the age of consent for sexual assault is fourteen years old.During trial, the court instructed the jury, without differentiating between the charged offenses of sexual intercourse without consent and sexual assault, that a person under the age of sixteen is incapable of consent as a matter of law. The victim in this case was fourteen years old at the time of the alleged offense. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the instruction allowed the jury to convict Defendant solely on evidence of the victim's age, and had trial counsel offered and argued a separate sexual assault "without consent" instruction, the result may have been different. View "State v. Resh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for attempted deliberate homicide, aggravated burglary, and tampering with or fabricating evidence, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant did not meet his burden to convince the Court that it was necessary to review the district court's note on the verdict form regarding alternative lesser included offenses under the plain error doctrine; (2) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of tampering with or fabricating evidence; and (3) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for felony sexual assault without consent, holding that the district court abused its discretion by not continuing the sentencing hearing.The district court was presented with Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing to accommodate the schedule of a key, and only, witness. The district court denied the motion, noting only that the motion was Defendant's fourth motion to continue the sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, holding that Defendant's request for a continuance was reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily in not granting Defendant's unopposed motion to continue the sentencing hearing. View "State v. Webber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying the petition filed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services to modify Kevin Capser's sentence, holding that the court's decision to deny the petition was an abuse of discretion.Capser, who suffered from schizophrenia, shot and killed his father. Capser was found guilty of deliberate homicide but that he suffered from a mental disease or disorder that rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior or to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. Capser was Department of Public Health and Human Services for one hundred years with thirty years suspended, with an additional ten years for the use of a weapon. The forensic review board later concluded that Capser no longer represented a substantial risk of harm to himself or others. The Department then filed a petition for review of sentence. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Capser remained a danger to himself and others. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court's decision was based on a generalized apprehension that something unfortunate might occur in the future, and therefore, the denial of the petition was not within the court's discretion. View "In re DPHHS Petition Concerning Kevin J. Capser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court ruling that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had illegally renewed a permit allowing Western Energy Company to discharge rain and snow water into surrounding ditches and creeks from its Rosebud Coal Mine in Colstrip, Montana, holding that further fact-finding was required.In 2012, DEQ renewed a permit, which was modified in 2014, for Western Energy to discharge pollutants contained in waters that were created by ongoing precipitation-driven events. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the DEQ's permit renewal violated the Montana Water Quality Act and federal Clean Water Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Montana Board of Environmental Review was not required to make a new stream classification for the Yellowstone River drainage; (2) DEQ can lawfully allow the mine to monitor a sample of the discharges that are representative of the precipitation water being released, but the district court must determine whether those releases are actually representative of the mining and discharge activities that are taking place at the mine; and (3) remand was required to determine whether a "pollutant-impaired stream" should be monitored with a higher environmental standard than the current permit requires. View "Montana Environmental Information Center v. Western Energy Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the municipal court's judgments of conviction on jury trial of misdemeanor criminal trespass, assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer, holding that the municipal court's evidentiary rulings challenged on appeal were without error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the municipal court erred in subjecting his asserted "substantial need" for the arresting officers' personnel files under Mont. Code Ann. 46-15-322(5) to balancing with their constitutional right to privacy, (2) the municipal court erred in excluding examining physician testimony regarding the nature and extent of injuries sustained by Defendant incident to arrest, and (3) insufficient evidence supported his obstructing a peace officer conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the municipal court correctly denied Defendant's request for discovery of the arresting officers' pre-incident personnel records; (2) the municipal court did not err in excluding Defendant's proffered physician testimony; and (3) the Court declines to review the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. View "City of Bozeman v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of deliberate homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to his relief on his argument that defense counsel was ineffective.On appeal, Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by objecting to a jury instruction that accomplice testimony must be viewed with distrust and must be corroborated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether Defendant's objection was a reasonable tactical decision. Consequently, the Court concluded that Defendant must pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a properly presented petition for postconviction relief. View "State v. Wittal" on Justia Law