Charles E. Erdmann

The case Schelske v. Creative Nail Design, Inc. involved plaintiffs Mischelle and Rick Schelske suing multiple corporate defendants, primarily manufacturers of nail and cosmetic products along with mall and construction entities. Following an initial Supreme Court of Montana opinion issued on January 2, 1997, the appellants petitioned for rehearing, prompting responses and objections from the parties. Due to changes in the court's composition, the matter was reconsidered en banc. Upon review of the record, briefs, and rehearing materials, the court reaffirmed its prior opinion and denied the petition for rehearing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Walker, the defendant was convicted of felony forgery after attempting to cash a fraudulent check at a Montana bank by posing as the payee and opening accounts with false identification. On appeal, Walker challenged the admission of still-frame photographs from bank surveillance video, the denial of a mistrial following a witness's reference to prior forgery investigations involving him, and the denial of a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the photographs were properly admitted, that any prejudicial testimony was cured by the trial court's admonition to the jury, and that there was no jury misconduct requiring a new trial. A dissent argued that the improper testimony about past investigations denied Walker a fair trial and warranted a mistrial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit by Emma Peschke and her family against Carroll College after Peschke, a cafeteria worker on campus, was shot and injured by John Aills, who had earlier been disruptive and armed in a campus chapel. Father Courtney had escorted Aills out of the chapel but did not warn others or contact security, and Aills then entered the cafeteria and shot Peschke and another employee. A jury found Carroll College not negligent, and the district court entered judgment for the college, which the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held there was substantial credible evidence supporting the verdict, the jury instructions were proper, and allowing a videotaped reenactment was not error.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved a negligence claim by Wade Kolar against Dennis Bergo and others after Kolar was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident caused by Dennis running a stop sign while rushing to respond to what he believed was an emergency call from a child, which was actually part of an April Fool's Day practical joke orchestrated by David Salvi and involving Linda Bergo. Kolar sued Linda Bergo and David Salvi for their role in the joke, but the district court granted them summary judgment. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the accident and injuries were foreseeable to Linda and David, and that reasonable minds could differ on the cause of the accident, making summary judgment inappropriate and requiring a jury trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Sherman Bartlett's attempt to recover insurance proceeds from Allstate after a fire destroyed a home he had contracted to buy but had not yet closed on due to a lien issue; Bartlett had obtained a binder through an agent but never paid a premium and the policy was never issued. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Allstate on the ground that Bartlett lacked an insurable interest in the property at the time of the loss, rendering the policy ineffective regardless of other claims. The court also affirmed dismissal of unfair trade practices, fraud, and punitive damages claims as they were tied to the lack of coverage, while reversing the award of certain costs to Allstate and remanding for recalculation limited to issues necessary for the insurable interest ruling, and finding a discovery error harmless.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Swan, the defendant was charged with felony assault from an initial fight and later with felony aggravated assault after a second fight in jail that caused severe injuries to the victim, including permanent damage to his eye; the charges were joined for trial, and a jury convicted Swan only on the aggravated assault count. Swan appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial, raising issues about jury instructions on lesser included offenses, his absence from an in-camera discussion of a jury note, the joinder of the charges, and claims of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Swan waived objections to the jury instructions and his absence from the hearing by failing to raise them timely, that counsel's strategic decisions on joinder did not constitute ineffective assistance under the Strickland standard, and that no prejudice was shown from the other alleged errors.

criminal lawprocedure