Archive | Constitutionality of statute

RSS feed for this section

Martinell v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Carbon County

Martinell v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Carbon County, 2016 MT 136 (June 7, 2016) (Rice, J.; Cotter, J., dissenting) (4-1, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by holding that the Carbon County commissioners acted arbitrarily in waiving compliance with county resolution zoning requirements; (2) whether the protest provision in the Part 1 zoning statute, § 76-2-101(5), MCA, is unconstitutional; and (3) whether the Carbon County commissioners’ reliance on the Part 1 protest provision render their decision unlawful. 

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) the Court declines to reach this issue; and (3) the Court declines to reach this issue.

Affirmed

Facts: Appellants are a group of private landowners (“Landowners”) in Carbon County who initiated a petition to establish a Part 1 zoning district pursuant to § 76-2-101, MCA.…

Montana Cannabis Industry Assoc. v. State

Montana Cannabis Industry Assoc. v. State, 2016 MT 44 (Feb. 25, 2016) (Baker, J., for the majority; McKinnon, J., concurring & dissenting; Rice, J., concurring & dissenting; Wheat, J.,concurring & dissenting) (6-1 on 5 of 6 issues; 4-3 on the 6th issue; aff’d & rev’d) (Cotter, J., recused and replaced by District Judge Robert Olson)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly held unconstitutional the statutory requirement that DPHHS notify the Board of Medical Examiners of any physician who certifies more than 25 patients a year for medical marijuana; (2) whether the district court properly held unconstitutional (a) the statute’s 3-patient limit and (b) the remuneration restriction; (3) whether the district court properly applied strict scrutiny to the statutory provision prohibiting advertising by medical marijuana providers; (4) whether the district court properly held that the statutory provision prohibiting probationers from becoming registered cardholders for medical marijuana was facially constitutional; and (5) whether the district court properly held constitutional the statutory provision allowing warrantless inspections of medical marijuana providers’ business by DPHHS and law enforcement.…

State v. Spady

State v. Spady, 2015 MT 218 (July 30, 2015) (McGrath, C.J.) (7-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it granted Spady’s motion to dismiss and concluded the 24/7 Sobriety Program is unconstitutional.

Short Answer: The Court holds that the 24/7 program is constitutional, but that state law and due process require an individualized assessment to determine whetherae defendant is an appropriate candidate for the program. Because the justice court did not conduct such an assessment here, the Court affirms the district court’s decision to remand Spady’s case to justice court with instructions to dismiss the contempt charges against him.

Affirmed and reversed, remanded with instructions

Facts: The 2011 Legislature enacted the 24/7 Sobriety Program Act, §§ 44-4-1201 through -1206, MCA.…

Malcolmson v. Liberty Northwest

Malcolmson v. Liberty Northwest, 2014 MT 242 (Sept. 10, 2014) (7-0) Cotter, J.

Issue: Whether MCA § 39-71-604(3), requiring a work comp claimant to authorize the insurer to communicate with health care providers without prior notice to the employee, violates Malcolmson’s constitutional right to privacy.

Short Answer: Yes. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determines the statute is facially unconstitutional. It is justified by a compelling state interest but is not narrowly tailored to effect that interest.

Affirmed

Covenant Investments v. Dept. of Revenue

Covenant Investments, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 2013 MT 215 (Aug. 6, 2013) (5-0) (Morris, J.)

Issue: Whether the district court properly determined that section 15-7-111, MCA, mandating a six-year tax cycle, violated Covenant’s right to equal protection.

Short Answer: No.

Reversed

Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc.

Ensey v. Mini Mart, Inc., 2013 MT 94 (April 10, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred by dismissing Ensey’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) whether the district court erred in finding that § 39-2-915, MCA does not violate Ensey’s constitutional rights.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) yes.

Affirmed issue 1, set aside issue 2