Latest 3 Cases: Miller v. Montana Board of Pardons & Parole (Civil Rights), Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Wessel (Insurance Law), Shepard v. ...

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Real Rigging of Georgia’s Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why Georgia’s law allowing persons 75 years and older to get absentee ballots for all elections in an election cycle with a single request, while requiring younger voters to request absentee ballots separately for each election, is a clear violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Dean Amar acknowledges that timing may prevent this age discrimination from being redressed in 2020, but he calls upon legislatures and courts to understand the meaning of this amendment and prevent such invidious disparate treatment of voters in future years.

Read More

COVID Comes to Federal Death Row—It Is Time to Stop the Madness

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains the enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection in the federal death row in Terre Haute, not only among inmates but among those necessary to carry out executions. Professor Sarat calls upon the Trump administration and other officials to focus on saving, rather than taking, lives inside and outside prison.

Read More

Miller v. Montana Board of Pardons & Parole

Citation: 2020 MT 318

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court that the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole did not violate Appellant's statutory or constitutional rights in denying Appellant's parole request, holding that the district court did not err. Appellant sought judicial review of the Board's decision, claiming that the Board denied him his right to know, right to participate, or right to due process when it denied him parole without first furnishing him a copy of documents on which the Board relied in making its decision. Appellant further argued that the Board unlawfully relied on a guideline without having adopted it as an administrative rule pursuant to the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the guideline was not the reason for the Board's decision, Appellant could not demonstrated the likelihood of a different outcome; and (2) the Board did not violate Appellant's right to know, right to participate, or due process rights.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Wessel

Citation: 2020 MT 319

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Laurie McKinnon

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the district court that Farmers Insurance Exchange had no duty to defend the Insureds in this case but reversed the district court's holding that the duty to indemnify was not justiciable, holding that when there is no duty to defend there cannot be a duty to indemnify. Defendants in two underlying lawsuits (together, the Insureds) tendered the claims to Farmers, with whom they had a homeowners insurance policy. Farmers concluded that coverage was not available because the claims asserted intentional conduct by the Insureds and filed the instant declaratory judgment action to confirm that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify. The district court granted summary judgment to Farmers, concluding that there was no coverage under the policy and that the issue of indemnification was not justiciable. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded there was no coverage under the policy; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying the Insureds more time for discovery; but (3) erred in concluding that the issue of whether Farmers had a duty to indemnify was not justiciable.

Shepard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Citation: 2020 MT 320

Opinion Date: December 22, 2020

Judge: Shea

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting motions to dismiss filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, holding that the district court did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against State Farm and Farmers alleging, among other claims, common law bad faith and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The insurers filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' bad faith claims on the basis that the liability of State Farm and Farmers was not reasonably clear.