Gene B. Daly

The case involved the estate and parents of an 18-year-old passenger killed in a car accident suing the intoxicated driver (who admitted fault) and his insurer, State Farm, which had denied liability and refused to negotiate; Count III alleged a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act under Montana's Insurance Code, section 33-18-201(6). The district court granted State Farm's motion to dismiss that count for failure to state a claim, entering a final judgment under Rule 54(b). The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute confers a cause of action on third-party claimants against an insurer that may be prosecuted jointly with the action against the insured, and that the certification for appeal was valid. The core reasoning was that the statutory text permits such claims without requiring proof of a general business practice, as a contrary reading would produce absurd results contrary to legislative intent, and prior precedent limiting post-appeal findings on certification was overruled.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the dissolution of a long-term marriage between Phyllis and Darrell Goodmundson, focusing on the equitable distribution of marital property that included farmland, farm equipment, stored grain, and other assets from the husband's dryland grain farming partnership with his father. The husband appealed the District Court's property division, arguing that the court failed to exercise independent judgment by largely adopting the wife's proposed findings on valuations and improperly classifying certain assets like inherited land or premarital property. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the valuations and allocations were supported by substantial evidence in the record, including appraiser testimony, tax returns, and the parties' own statements, and that any minor errors did not warrant reversal. The court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in the overall distribution of the marital estate.

family lawproperty

In State v. Bailey, the defendant was charged with the felony of attempted sale of dangerous drugs in Montana. After the initial information was dismissed for being filed late under state time limits, the prosecution's efforts to refile led to significant delays; the defendant relocated to Indiana, a new information was filed months later, and trial was postponed at his request before he moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The district court granted the dismissal, charging the period between filings against the State as a continuous prosecution. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the length of delay attributable to the State shifted the burden to explain it and demonstrate lack of prejudice, which the State failed to do, and that the defendant suffered cognizable economic prejudice from the delay.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of defendant Emil Longneck for aggravated assault arising from an incident in which he struck Curtis Alexander with a stick during a confrontation outside a tavern in Havre, Montana, mistakenly believing Alexander was another person involved in an earlier scuffle. The Montana Supreme Court had previously reversed a district court acquittal and remanded for sentencing; on remand, Longneck received a two-year prison term and appealed, raising issues including whether the aggravated assault charge was properly before the jury and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that circumstantial evidence—including witness descriptions of the object as an 18-to-24-inch round stick, the audible impact, the victim's immediate reaction, and the defendant's own characterization of it as a 'light stick'—was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a weapon was used in the assault.

criminal law

The case concerned Missoula County's attempt to correct a clerical error in the property tax assessment of Evans Products Company's mill buildings for tax years 1978 and 1979, which had resulted in underassessment; after discovering the mistake, the county issued a supplemental tax bill without following the statutory procedures for erroneous assessments under section 15-8-601, MCA, prompting Evans to pay under protest and sue for a refund. The Montana Supreme Court held that the county's initial correction was invalid because it failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory process for revising assessments. The court therefore affirmed the district court's order requiring a refund of the taxes paid but reversed the portion of the judgment that would bar the Department of Revenue from now properly following the procedures in section 15-8-601, MCA, to reassess the property. The core reasoning was that the error, whether characterized as an assessment or appraisal mistake, qualified as an erroneous assessment requiring compliance with the statute's notice and hearing requirements before any additional taxes could be collected.

taxespropertyprocedure

Real estate brokers sued ranch owners to recover a commission from the sale of the property under a listing agreement. The district court granted summary judgment to the owners, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The brokers had shown the property to buyers who entered a contingent buy/sell agreement that expired before they could complete the purchase, and the actual sale occurred after the listing agreement and its 180-day grace period had ended. The court reasoned that the buyers were not ready and able to buy within the agreement's time limits, which were strictly enforced absent any waiver.

propertybusiness & regulatory