Marks v. 71 Ranch, LP, 2014 MT 250 (Sept. 16, 2014) (5-0) Rice, J.
Issue: Whether the Water Court correctly held that Marks failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut 71 Ranch’s claimed point of diversion and place of use for its water rights.
Short Answer: Yes.
Affirmed
…
Thieltges v. Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., 2014 MT 247 (Sept. 16, 2014) (5-0) McKinnon, J.
Issue: Whether the status of Royal Alliance’s agent as a registered securities salesperson was a self-concealing fact supporting a delay in the running of the statute of limitations.
Short Answer: No.
Affirmed
…
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
…
Estate of Benjamin, 2014 MT 241 (Sept. 9, 2014) (5-0) Rice, J.
Issue: Whether the district court erred in dismissing Delmar’s claims for fraud and newly discovered property on the grounds of res judicata.
Short Answer: Yes.
Reversed
…
State v. Zunick, 2014 MT 239 (Sept. 9, 2014) (4-1) Cotter, J., for the majority; McGrath, C.J., dissenting
Issue: Whether the district court erred when it did not provide Zunick the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea at sentencing pursuant to § 46-12-211(4), MCA, and subsequently denying Zunick’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Short Answer: Yes.
Reversed & remanded for resentencing
…
State v. Strom, 2014 MT 234 (Sept. 2, 2014) (5-0) Rice, J.
Issue: Whether the police officer had particularized suspicion to seize Strom.
Short Answer: No.
Reversed & remanded
…
State v. Brothers, 2013 MT 222 (Aug. 13, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)
Issue: Whether the district court erred by ordering Brothers to pay restitution to the state.
Short Answer: Yes.
Reversed & remanded to amend judgment…
Landa v. Assurance Co. of America, 2013 MT 217 (Aug. 6, 2013) (5-0) (Wheat, J.)
Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Assurance on the basis that Assurance had no duty to defend because the complaint did not allege an “occurrence” and did not involve “bodily injury,” and (2) whether the district court properly held that Assurance had no duty to conduct an independent investigation.
Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.
Affirmed…
Diaz v. State, 2013 MT 219 (Aug. 6, 2013) (6-1) (Baker, J., for the majority; Wheat, J., dissenting)
Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion by defining the class to include only those insureds who had timely filed claims for covered benefits.
Short Answer: No.
Affirmed…
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…