Municipal Court of California, County of Los Angeles — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Reichert v. STATE EX REL. McCULLOCH
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-05-18 · cited 90×
The case concerned a challenge to Legislative Referendum No. 119 (LR-119), which proposed changing the election of Montana Supreme Court justices from statewide to a district-based system requiring justices to reside and vote in their districts, with the chief justice selected by the other justices. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order directing the Secretary of State to decertify LR-119 and remove it from the June 2012 primary ballot. The court held that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge was justiciable, that LR-119 impermissibly amended the Montana Constitution by adding qualifications for office not present in the constitution, and that the offending provisions could not be severed from the measure. No recusal of non-retiring justices was required.
electionscivil rights
State v. Johnson
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-05-08 · cited 13×
The case involved Tristeana Johnson appealing her conviction for criminal possession of marijuana after a traffic stop where she was found with less than an ounce of the substance and admitted recent use, despite possessing a valid Montana medical marijuana card. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) did not shield her from prosecution because she had not obtained the marijuana from her registered caregiver. The court reasoned that the MMA's language is clear and unambiguous in requiring that protected possession come from the designated caregiver, and evidence from the caregiver confirmed he had not supplied it. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under the applicable statutes.
criminal lawhealthcare
Nielsen v. HORNSTEINER
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-05-08 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute over an access easement on property in Lincoln County, Montana, where the Nielsens sued Hornsteiner for installing a locked gate and debris that interfered with their use of the easement. After Hornsteiner failed to timely respond to the complaint, the district court entered default against him and later denied his motion to set it aside, finding he had not presented a meritorious defense despite admitting the easement's existence and the obstructions. The court also awarded the Nielsens attorney's fees, which Hornsteiner did not timely object to under local rules. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default because Hornsteiner offered no reasonable explanation for the obstructions as required by easement law, and that he had waived any objection to the fee award by failing to raise it properly before the district court.
propertyprocedure
State v. Melton
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-04-17 · cited 17×
In State v. Melton, the defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sexual or violent offender under Montana law after prior convictions in Washington for rape of a child and bail jumping, and he received a two-year suspended sentence. The district court imposed probation conditions (14 and 15) barring Melton from unsupervised contact with minors under 18 (except his own children) or from visiting places where children typically gather, unless accompanied by an approved trained adult and with prior probation officer approval. Melton appealed, arguing the conditions were not reasonably related to rehabilitation or public safety and unduly burdened his parental rights and freedom of movement. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the restrictions were justified by Melton’s history of sexual offending, failure to complete treatment, and repeated noncompliance with registration requirements, consistent with precedents such as State v. Malloy, and noting that modification remains available if circumstances change.
criminal law
Kraft v. HIGH COUNTRY MOTORS, INC.
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-04-17 · cited 11×
The case involved a dispute between Raleigh Kraft and used car dealer Mitchell Rider and his company High Country Motors over a verbal agreement to purchase and resell a motor coach, where Kraft alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and related claims after discovering Rider had concealed the lower actual purchase price. The Montana Supreme Court reviewed appeals from a default judgment entered against the defendants as a discovery sanction for failing to produce financial and tax records despite court orders, along with challenges to damages calculations and a cross-appeal on prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the default judgment sanction and denial of motions to set it aside, reversed the district court's damages calculation, and held that Kraft was entitled to statutory prejudgment interest at 10 percent because the monetary obligation was certain or calculable and vested on a particular day. It remanded for further proceedings on damages and interest calculation.
procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability
Progressive Direct Insurance v. Stuivenga
Montana Supreme Court · 2012-04-10 · cited 38×
This case arose from a single-vehicle accident in which Casey Stuivenga and Britni Evans were injured; each claimed the other was driving Stuivenga's insured truck and sought the $25,000 per-person liability limit under his Progressive policy. Progressive filed an interpleader action, deposited the funds with the court, and asked the district court to decide the rightful recipient. A jury determined that Evans had been the driver, after which the district court denied Evans's motion for a new trial and ordered the funds released to Stuivenga. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court first held the appeal was not moot because the underlying dispute over liability and entitlement to the proceeds remained live. It then affirmed the denial of a new trial, concluding that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion when it found no improper argument or facts not in evidence during closing statements.
torts & liabilityprocedure