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

This case involved two separate contracts for the purchase of subdivided land parcels in Montana: one between the Wortmans and individual buyers Griff and Caplan for lots 1-6, and another between the Wortmans and Conservative Investors Group (a corporation owned by Griff and Caplan) for lots 7-13. The sellers sued to terminate all rights under both contracts after the corporation stopped payments, arguing the agreements formed a single deal, while the buyers contended the contracts were distinct and the corporation counterclaimed for rescission based on alleged misrepresentations about buildable sites outside a floodplain. The district court ruled the contracts were separate and distinct on their face and that the sellers had defrauded the corporation. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unambiguous contract language made no reference to each other, the parties' intent controlled, and substantial evidence supported treating the corporation separately without disregarding its identity. The court also upheld attorney fees for the prevailing parties under the contract terms.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned Gary Joseph Swan's 1972 Montana convictions for second-degree assault and rape, which he challenged years later through a federal habeas corpus petition after his trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal and multiple state and federal attempts to obtain transcripts and pursue review were denied. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that a jury instruction treating the mental state element as mandatory was prejudicial error because mental state was a key factual issue in light of the insanity defense, and that the trial itself violated due process and fairness requirements under Article II, Sections 17 and 24 of the 1972 Montana Constitution. The court remanded the rape conviction for possible retrial if sufficient evidence remained, while noting the assault sentence had already been served.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a divorced couple disputing the enforcement and modification of the mother's visitation rights with their minor children after the father was granted custody. The district court found the father in contempt for interfering with visitation and addressed related orders. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court determined that the contempt holding was not properly reviewable here, reversed the district court's judgment except for that holding, and remanded for a new hearing focused on the children's best interests. The court reasoned that independent counsel should be appointed for the children to ensure a fair assessment amid parental conflicts and conflicting testimony, while also directing the lower court to facilitate immediate visitation and award attorney fees if needed.

family law

The case involved the estate of Bessie Eva Dunlap, who died testate and explicitly disinherited her son J. Wayne Dunlap in her will while devising the estate to a cemetery association. After the son petitioned for a $3,500 exempt property allowance under section 72-2-802, MCA, the district court granted the request, and the estate appealed. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that the statute provides an absolute grant of exempt property to surviving children that is in addition to any share under the will unless the will otherwise addresses these statutory rights, which it did not. The court reasoned that the family protection provisions of the Uniform Probate Code, including exempt property allowances, are intended to safeguard immediate family members from disinheritance regardless of testamentary intent.

family lawproperty

This case involved the custody of five children declared neglected and dependent after their natural parents had ongoing difficulties raising them and the family had moved to Montana to avoid welfare authorities in Washington. The paternal grandmother intervened seeking custody following an adjudicatory hearing that placed the children with the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), and a later dispositional hearing where parental rights were terminated. The district court awarded custody to the SRS with authority to consent to adoption rather than to the grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that grandparents have no superior right to custody over non-relatives and that the district court's best-interests determination was supported by sufficient credible evidence, including testimony on the children's individual needs, the grandmother's living and work plans, and the risk of contact with the parents.

family law

This case involved a dispute over whether the owners of one landlocked tract (Schmids) could claim an implied easement or way of necessity across an adjacent tract (McDowells) that had been sold by the same original owner. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling denying the claim. The court reasoned that both tracts were already landlocked by state and railroad lands at the time of the original division, with no access to a public road without crossing third-party property, and a way of necessity cannot be established over lands not under common ownership or when both parcels lack access to public roads.

property

This case involves an appeal from a district court's denial of a wife's motion to set aside a default judgment in a divorce proceeding. The default judgment dissolved the 1947 marriage of Charles and Elaine Tesch and awarded the couple's primary marital asset, a farm, to the husband. The wife, who has advanced multiple sclerosis and resides in a nursing home, was not represented in the proceedings, and no record was made of her wishes regarding the divorce or property division. The Montana Supreme Court set aside the default judgment and remanded the case, holding that a competency hearing must be held to determine whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed under Rule 17(c), M.R.Civ.P., and that the wife's voluntary and knowing relinquishment of her interest in the farm must be placed on the record. The Court also noted a potential conflict of interest with the previously appointed guardian ad litem.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit by two plaintiffs against the State of Montana after their car was struck while making a left turn at a highway intersection, resulting in serious injuries. The plaintiffs claimed the State failed to adequately warn drivers or improve the intersection despite prior accidents, but settled with the other driver and proceeded to trial against the State alone. A jury returned a verdict for the State, which the district court entered as judgment. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any error in the trial court's handling of jury voir dire regarding taxpayer interests was harmless because the jury did not reach the issue of damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Dickens, the defendant was charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexual intercourse without consent after the victim testified she was abducted at knifepoint, taken to a remote area, and sexually assaulted. A jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court imposed consecutive and concurrent prison sentences totaling thirty years. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court considered challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of a physician's testimony stating his impression that the victim was raped. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that any error in the expert testimony did not require reversal because it was not sufficiently prejudicial under the applicable evidence rules.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Plouffe, the defendant appealed his conviction for deliberate homicide and the district court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made to police. The case involved the strangulation death of a woman whose trailer contained the defendant's wallet; he had been with her hours before, made inconsistent statements to police, and later attempted suicide. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and denial of the motion, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

In State v. Lamb, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Montana district court of sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated kidnapping after an incident in which he picked up a stranded woman at a cafe, drove her to a secluded area, and forced her to have sex despite her resistance, resulting in a 50-year prison sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct under Montana's rape shield law, by allowing the victim to remain in the courtroom during his testimony, and by failing to sequester a witness. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the excluded evidence did not fall under statutory exceptions and was not central to the outcome given the overwhelming corroborating evidence supporting the victim's account, while the remaining issues were either unpreserved or unsupported by the record.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cook, Kenneth E. Cook, Sr. was convicted of negligent homicide after his vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian, Susan Dufner, while she was jogging with her dog in Glendive, Montana. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court reasoned that forensic evidence, including matching glass, paint, hair, and a dent on the truck, linked Cook's vehicle to the incident, and his admitted heavy intoxication—having consumed over twelve beers—resulted in driving that grossly deviated from the standard of reasonable care, constituting criminal negligence.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over whether an employment contract was formed and breached between Gary Como and Jim Rhines of Sound West, Inc. The district court found that Rhines offered Como an accounting role with agreed salary, benefits, and expense reimbursements during interviews, but failed to honor the terms after Como relocated. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the breach ruling and held Rhines personally liable alongside the company, reasoning that Rhines never disclosed he was acting solely as an agent for the corporation during negotiations. Damages included salary, travel costs, and a statutory penalty under MCA 39-3-206, with remand for adjusted damages calculation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Stanley Celmer's claim against his former employer, Lloyd Schmitt, for unpaid overtime wages after Celmer worked as a meat cutter and manager in Schmitt's agricultural business from April to December 1980. The district court denied the claim, ruling that Celmer had been fully compensated through his salary and allowances, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that Celmer was properly classified as an agricultural laborer exempt from overtime requirements under state law, based on the nature of the integrated livestock and meat production enterprise and his pre-employment agreement to that classification. It further noted distinctions from prior cases involving non-agricultural service work and observed that Celmer had not reported or sought compensation for overtime hours until after his employment ended.

labor & employment