W. William Leaphart

The case involved Roland Tirey, convicted in 1996 of felony sexual assault and sentenced to 50 years in prison with 25 years suspended, who was released on probation in 2008 subject to conditions including job search requirements, weekly reporting, and sexual offender treatment. After Tirey missed appointments, failed to submit job logs, and did not comply with treatment, the district court revoked his probation, imposed the full 25-year suspended term at Montana State Prison, designated him a Level II sexual offender, and added new probation conditions. Tirey appealed, challenging the revocation and arguing the court exceeded statutory limits under the 1995 version of § 46-18-203(7)(c), MCA, by adding conditions and failing to credit probation time or state reasons for it. The Montana Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court acted outside statutory parameters in incorporating additional conditions into the sentence and addressing the offender designation and time credit. The core reasoning focused on the statutory requirement that a revocation sentence be the same as or lesser than the original, along with clarification of prior case law regarding non-punitive conditions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a divorce and child custody dispute between Carl and Heather Myrland, who had lived in multiple states with their child ANM. Carl appealed the district court's order dismissing his Montana petition for dissolution and parenting plan due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Montana Supreme Court determined that both Montana and Texas had jurisdiction over the dissolution proceeding and affirmed the setting aside of the default decree, but held that the district court had not properly considered the inconvenient forum factors under § 40-7-108(2) for the custody matter, as Montana is the child's home state. The court remanded for further proceedings on the custody jurisdiction issue.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence lawsuit by Peggy Stevens against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, alleging that the company failed to adequately warn about the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with its drug Zometa, leading to her injury after dental surgery. A jury awarded Stevens $3.2 million in compensatory damages, and the district court denied Novartis's various motions challenging the verdict. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings on summary judgment, jury instructions, evidentiary matters, and post-trial motions regarding liability and damages. However, it reversed the decision to offset the award by Stevens's social security disability benefits, reasoning that the general verdict lacked the necessary breakdown to determine what portion of the damages was subject to such an offset under state law.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Park Place Apartments, LLC (PPA), which purchased a commercial insurance policy from Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company (FUMIC) through agent Wilhelm for an apartment complex including a carport, believing the standard businessowners policy covered all structures on the property. After heavy snow caused the carport to collapse in 2008, FUMIC denied the claim, citing an amendatory endorsement (BOP-54) that limited coverage to buildings specifically listed on the declarations page. The district court granted summary judgment to FUMIC and Wilhelm. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy was ambiguous because a reasonable insured would expect coverage for the entire complex under standard commercial insurance and that ambiguities must be construed in favor of extending coverage.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Montana Board of Pharmacy seeking to enjoin Thomas Kennedy, operating as Canadian Connection, from assisting customers with ordering prescription drugs from out-of-state and foreign pharmacies without a license, in alleged violation of the Montana Pharmacy Act. After years of related proceedings, including a prior preliminary injunction and a contempt finding against Kennedy for continuing the business, the district court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, issued a permanent injunction, and denied Kennedy's cross-motion. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kennedy's activities constituted the unlicensed practice of pharmacy under the Act, that the Board had regulatory authority over him, and that a permanent injunction was warranted because monetary damages would not adequately protect the public and to avoid repeated litigation. The court also upheld the contempt order and sanctions.

business & regulatoryhealthcarecriminal law

The case involved Dallas Reichmand's conviction on two counts of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs based on evidence from undercover purchases, including warrantless electronic recordings of conversations with the buyer. After the verdict but before sentencing, Reichmand moved to set aside the verdict citing the Montana Supreme Court's intervening decision in State v. Goetz, which held that such warrantless monitoring violated privacy rights. The district court denied the motion, relying on precedent that limited retroactive application of Goetz to defendants who had raised a similar objection at trial to preserve the issue. On appeal, the court considered whether Goetz applied retroactively to Reichmand's direct appeal despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection, addressing statutory preservation requirements and doctrines allowing review of unpreserved errors.

criminal lawprocedure