Archive | Equal protection

RSS feed for this section

Wreszien v. State

Wreszien v. State, 2016 MT 242 (Sept. 28, 2016) (Shea, J.) (7-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court correctly concluded that the participants of three public employee retirement plans were not similarly situated; and (2) whether the district court correctly concluded that employer contributions to the DB Trust do not violate substantive due process.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: Plaintiffs are state university employees, and must participate in one of three Montana Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) plans: the DB plan, the DC plan, or the University plan. All covered employees participate in the DB plan unless, within one year of hire, they choose to join the DC plan or, if applicable, the University plan.…

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.…

Gazelka v. St. Peter’s Hospital

Gazelka v. St. Peter’s Hospital, 2015 MT 127 (May 12, 2015) (Baker, J.) (4-1, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly held that Gazelka had standing; and (2) whether the district court properly awarded the hospital summary judgment.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) no.

Affirmed (1) and reversed (2) and remanded

Facts: Gazelka was involved in a car accident in early 2010, and had no health insurance. She received treatment at the hospital. The driver of the car that hit her had a Safeco policy with $100,000 policy limits. Safeco paid for some of Gazelka’s medical bills. When it settled for the policy limits, the Ridley payments were deducted from the settlement funds Gazelka received.

In early 2011, Gazelka was treated at the hospital, and uninsured.…

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