Archive | Jurisdiction

RSS feed for this section

Marriage of Sampley

Marriage of Sampley, 2015 MT 121 (May 5, 2015) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court by refusing to hold a hearing prior to issuing its order; and (2) whether the district court erred by deciding it lacked jurisdiction over the parenting and custody issues.

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

Affirmed

Facts: Matthew and Michelle Sampley married in January 2010 in Canada, and moved to Alaska in October 2010. Cael was born in Alaska in 2011. The family moved to Washington in October 2011, and to Billings in September 2013.

In October 2013, Michelle and Cael moved to Canada to stay with Michelle’s parents. They extended their stay until the end of December 2013. Matthew visited them in Canada for five days in November and 10 days in December.…

Moreau v. Transportation Insurance Co.

Moreau v. Transportation Insurance Co., 2015 MT 5 (Jan. 6, 2015) (McGrath, C.J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: Whether a workers’ compensation claimant’s estate had standing to seek reimbursement of his medical expenses from the insurance carrier.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Edwin Moreau worked at the W.R. Grace mine from 1963-1992. He died of asbestos-related lung cancer in 2009. In 2010, his wife Cristita, the PR of the estate, filed for occupational disease benefits with Grace’s work comp carrier, Transportation Insurance. After initially denying the claim, Transportation accepted liability for Edwin’s medical expenses. Moreau and Transportation entered a settlement agreement under which Transportation reimbursed Medicaid, other providers, and Moreau for medical expenses paid on Edwin’s behalf.

The Libby Medical Plan, established and funded by W.R.…

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