No Good Men?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a film called “Promising Young Women,” which purports to be a feminist movie about date rape. While Professor Colb describes the movie as interesting, thought-provoking, and “definitely” worth seeing, she argues that it suggests a view of men and sexual assault that is erroneous and potentially even anti-feminist.

Read More

Last Call at the Bar: Grading the Briefs in Trump Impeachment 2.0

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, offers thoughts on the legal tactics and briefs filed by each side in former President Trump’s second impeachment trial. Mr. Falvy argues that if Trump can survive a second impeachment vote, it will show that he is still operating where he has always believed himself to be: well beyond the reach of the law.

Read More

Montana State University-Northern v. Bachmeier

Citation: 2021 MT 26

Opinion Date: February 3, 2021

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court upholding a hearing officer's conclusion that Montana State University-North (MSU-N) retaliated against Dr. Randy Bachmeier for reporting and pursuing a claim of sexual harassment against his supervisor, holding that the district court erred in reinstating the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision in this matter. The hearing officer's original order concluded that Bachmeier failed to demonstrate that his supervisor sexually harassed him but that MSU-N retaliated against Bachmeier. The HRC rejected the hearing officer's conclusion that Bachmeier was discriminated against, upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion, and remanded the case. The hearing officer issued a second decision concluding that Bachmeier had been sexually harassed. The Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC) then issued a final agency decision reducing the damages award for sexual harassment but leaving untouched the retaliation award. The district court voided the hearing officer's second decision and remanded with instructions to reinstate the hearing officer's first decision as the final agency decision. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion by concluding that the HRC did not have the authority to modify the hearing officer's first decision; and (2) correctly upheld the hearing officer's retaliation conclusion.

State v. Krause

Citation: 2021 MT 24

Opinion Date: February 2, 2021

Judge: Laurie McKinnon

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence and in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State had failed to meet its burden of proving that he was on a "way of this state open to the public" because he was found by a police officer in a vehicle that was parked in a permitted parking spot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to assess whether the parking space at issue was adapted and fitted for public travel and in common use by the public, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Mack v. Anderson

Citation: 2021 MT 25

Opinion Date: February 2, 2021

Judge: Laurie McKinnon

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court establishing the point of diversion for two claims owned by Carolyn Mack and Chriss Mack, holding that the Water Court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court (1) did not err when it concluded that it had jurisdiction over the Macks' amended statement of claim; (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Macks did not make any judicial admissions in previous litigation; (3) did not err in assigning the burden of proof to Appellants - Glenda, Jimmy, John, and Rowdy Anderson; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Andersons' expert witness. Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that there was substantial evidence supporting the Water Court's conclusion establishing the point of diversion for the Macks' claims.