Lee Metcalf

In State v. Simon, the defendant was charged under Montana law with assault by shooting toward Harry Moore with shotguns and rifles during a nighttime incident at Moore's farm, after Moore had confronted a group of boys throwing rocks. A jury convicted the defendant based on ballistic evidence linking shells to guns from the group, Moore's testimony about the shooting, and an officer's account of the defendant's oral admissions that he had been present and fired a gun. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove essential elements including that the weapons were likely to cause grievous bodily harm at the distance fired and that the defendant's connection to the specific weapons was adequately established. The court further reasoned that the conviction could not stand on the uncorroborated testimony regarding the defendant's admissions, given the absence of supporting witnesses who were present and the availability of stronger evidence that was not produced.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over possession of the Western Star Bar in St. Regis, Montana, and associated retail beer and liquor licenses after the Barkers obtained a 1950 judgment against the Monacos confirming their ownership. Because the Barkers could not hold the licenses under Montana law due to their residency, the parties executed multiple instruments on July 14, 1950, including an assignment of the licenses to mortgagee Sears, authorizations for transfer to him, and a lease of the bar premises to Sears for $50 per month; the Barkers later sought to revoke these and lease to defendant Delaney instead. Sears sued for quiet title to the licenses, specific performance of the lease, possession, and damages. The trial court ruled for Sears, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the documents executed together formed a valid, enforceable lease and transfer supported by consideration, with Delaney's later lease giving him no superior rights.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned whether the City of Helena was bound by a 1950 cooperation agreement with the Helena Housing Authority, a public corporation created under state law, to support a federally funded low-rent housing project of about 60 units. The city council had passed a resolution approving the Authority's preliminary loan application and later signed the agreement, but in 1952 it enacted ordinances attempting to cancel the agreement and revoke the building permit after the Authority had spent funds and incurred liabilities. The court held that the city was required to honor the agreement and issue the permit, ruling the canceling ordinance unconstitutional and void from inception. The reasoning centered on the principle that public officials cannot disclaim knowledge of resolutions they passed, that delay in challenging the contract forfeited any right to rescind, and that reliance by the Authority and federal agency prevented later repudiation.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a defendant charged with corruptly attempting to influence a grand juror through private oral communications, including persuasion and promises of payment, regarding matters under investigation. After conviction, the defendant appealed, arguing among other issues that the trial court had improperly denied a challenge to the jury panel, which had been reduced to 21-23 members through excusals, with several subject to challenge for cause, leaving too few jurors even after peremptory challenges. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury selection process failed to substantially comply with statutes requiring jurors to be drawn from the full qualified pool in the county (jury box No. 1), and that resort to jury box No. 3 was not justified by the statutory emergency of great delay or expense; this deviation denied the defendant's right to an impartial jury selected according to law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a 12-year-old boy injured while playing on a manually operated passenger elevator inside the defendant's grain elevator building; the elevator, used by employees to access grain bins, rose unexpectedly due to counterweights and then fell after a rope broke. The plaintiff's guardian ad litem sued on theories of attractive nuisance (two counts) and premises liability as an invitee or licensee (third count). The trial court sustained the defendant's general demurrer and dismissed the case, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed as to the first two counts and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the complaint's allegations—that the defendant knew or should have known the elevator was attractive and dangerous to children, that children had played on it, and that it posed an unreasonable risk—were sufficient to state a claim under the attractive nuisance doctrine as defined by prior Montana cases and the Restatement of Torts. The third count was properly dismissed because it failed to allege facts showing the boy was an invitee acting for the defendant's benefit rather than a licensee.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case concerned whether Montana real property purchased with California community property funds was subject to Montana inheritance tax upon the death of a California resident who willed his entire estate to his wife. The wife, as executrix, argued that under California community property law she held a vested one-half interest in the Montana assets prior to her husband's death, so that portion did not pass by succession and was not taxable. The Montana Supreme Court held that the law of the situs controls the incidence of inheritance tax and that the wife's interest under California law was not a vested ownership interest that removed the property from Montana's tax statutes; therefore the entire value of the Montana estate was taxable. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for calculation of the tax due on the full amount.

taxesfamily lawproperty