Summers v. Crestview Apartments
236 P.3d 586 (Mont. 2010)
In Summers v. Crestview Apartments,1 the Montana Supreme Court held that residential leases in Montana may not contain a provision requiring the accelerated payment of rent upon default.2 The Court also concluded that lease agreements may not provide for the deduction of future unpaid rent from security deposits,3 and attorney-fees provisions favoring either party are unlawful—even where they favor the non-breaching party.4 Landlords and tenants should be aware of this case as the inclusion of these prohibited terms will likely invalidate a lease agreement in its entirety.5 Continue reading
Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons
230 P.3d 808 (Mont. 2010)
Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons1 clarified certain environmental impact information a developer is required to include in an application to build a subdivision.2 The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to void the Helena City Commission’s approval of a subdivision application submitted by Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC (“Aspen Trails”).3 In doing so, the Court held that the Helena City Commission (“Commission”) violated the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (“MSPA”) by approving the application without taking a “hard look” at the negative impacts the subdivision could have on the surrounding environment.4 The Court also upheld the district court’s decision to admit evidence outside of the administrative record to determine whether the Commission properly examined the environmental impacts of the subdivision.5 Continue reading
State v. Meredith
226 P.3d 571 (Mont. 2010)
In State v. Meredith,1 the Montana Supreme Court held that a person taken into custody has no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the statements he or she makes while alone in a police interrogation room.2 Therefore, law enforcement’s warrantless recording of such statements without the person’s knowledge does not constitute a search in Montana.3 Continue reading
Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc.
234 P.3d 880 (Mont. 2010)
In Alexander v. Bozeman Motors,1 the Montana Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether allegations of an “intentional injury” are sufficient to avoid the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”).2 The Court held that “deliberate and intentional conduct may be inferred from factual allegations indicating that an employer knew an employee was being harmed, failed to warn the employee of the harm, and intentionally continued to expose the employee to the harm.”3 The decision provides injured workers a roadmap to avoid the exclusivity provision of the WCA. Continue reading
PPL Montana, LLC v. State
229 P.3d 421
In PPL Montana, LLC v. State,1 the Montana Supreme Court upheld a district-court ruling that PPL Montana, LLC (“PPL”) owed the State of Montana (“State” or “Montana”) over $40 million for use of state-owned riverbeds used for hydroelectric power production from 2000 to 2007.2 While the Court ultimately reviewed six issues, this short focuses on the role of navigability in determining title to Montana’s riverbeds and the calculation of damages for their unauthorized use. Continue reading
Montana Shooting Sports Association v. State
224 P.3d 1240 (Mont. 2010)
In Montana Shooting Sports Association v. State,1 the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana Code Annotated § 87–2–202 does not implicate a citizen’s right to privacy as protected by Article II, § 10 of the Montana Constitution.2 That statute requires hunters, anglers, and trappers to include the last four digits of their social security numbers (“SSNs”) and other personal information when submitting conservation license applications to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (“FWP”).3 The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling,4 but applied a different level of review.5 The district court applied strict scrutiny to the case because it determined that § 87–2–202 implicates individuals’ fundamental right to privacy.6 The Supreme Court, however, applied the less stringent rational-basis standard because it determined that individuals’ constitutional right to informational privacy is not implicated when state legislation requires them to submit their SSNs to a state organization.7 The Court held that the State was merely pursuing legitimate state interests rationally related to the purpose of § 87–2–202, and affirmed the case on those grounds.8 Continue reading
In re Best
229 P.3d 1201 (Mont. 2010)
In In re Best,1 the Montana Supreme Court held that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) cannot discipline an attorney with a private admonition without affording the attorney due process rights.2 The Court additionally held that the Commission on Practice (“COP”) cannot, sua sponte, charge a lawyer with a disciplinary violation not alleged in the ODC complaint.3 Continue reading
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality
234 P.3d 51 (Mont. 2010)
In Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality,1 the Montana Supreme Court held that the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) requires states to enforce pre-discharge treatment of all groundwater discharge resulting from coal bed methane (“CBM”) extraction.2 The Northern Cheyenne Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Tongue River Water Users’ Association, and Northern Plains Resource Council (“Appellants”) challenged two permits issued to Fidelity Exploration & Production Company (“Fidelity”) allowing discharge of untreated and partially untreated groundwater into the Tongue River.3 The Court determined that the CWA requires CBM extractors to use the best available technology to treat all wastewater before discharge.4 Reversing the district court’s decision, the Court unanimously held that Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) must enforce the best available technology requirement when issuing discharge permits.5 As a result, the Court voided both of Fidelity’s discharge permits.6 Continue reading
In re the Mental Health of L.R.
231 P.3d 594 (Mont. 2010)
In re the Mental Health of L.R. concerning the involuntary medication of a mentally ill person.2 The statutes at issue in this case are inconsistent because treatment for a person in an emergency situation under Montana Code Annotated § 53–21–129(2) (2009) may include medication, and the time period for such treatment could overlap with the 24-hour period a person may refuse medication under § 53–21–115(11).3 In the case at issue, the Montana Supreme Court held that a mental health patient’s statutory rights were not violated even though she was involuntarily medicated less than 24 hours prior to her initial hearing.4 Continue reading
McKinnon v. Western Sugar Cooperative Corp.
225 P.3d 1221 (Mont. 2010)
The Montana Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to liberal rules of pleading in the recent case McKinnon v. Western Sugar Cooperative Corp.1 The plaintiff, an employee of Western Sugar Cooperative Corp. (“Western Sugar”), was injured in the course of his work when a railcar accident amputated both his legs on February 15, 2005.2 He received workers’ compensation benefits.3 McKinnon then sued Western Sugar, claiming the statutory exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity applied because Western Sugar’s conduct both caused his injuries and was intentional.4 The Court allowed the case to advance to discovery, even though McKinnon appeared to have little chance of ultimately satisfying the requirements for an exclusivity exception. Continue reading