If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Montana Supreme Court
January 28, 2021

Table of Contents

State v. Mercier

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Maffit v. City of Helena

Civil Rights

State v. Quinlan

Constitutional Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Impeaching a Former President Is Plainly Constitutional

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

verdict post

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the text of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the power to impeach and convict Donald Trump, even though he is no longer President. Buchanan describes the unambiguous textual support for this conclusion, which Buchanan (and others) argue is also amply supported by the Constitution’s purpose, structure, and other interpretive approaches.

Read More

Montana Supreme Court Opinions

State v. Mercier

Citation: 2021 MT 12

Opinion Date: January 26, 2021

Judge: James A. Rice

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

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for deliberate homicide and tampering with physical evidence, holding that Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation was violated, requiring reversal of his conviction of tampering with physical evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was denied his right under the United States and Montana Constitutions to confront witnesses against him when the State presented a foundational witness in real time by two-way videoconference. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) furtherance of an important public policy to allow the witness to testify via two-way videoconferencing was not demonstrated in this case, and therefore, the first prong of the analysis set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was not satisfied; and (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial was not undermined by the prosecutor's closing argument.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Maffit v. City of Helena

Citation: 2021 MT 14

Opinion Date: January 26, 2021

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim brought by the Montana Independent Living Project, Inc. (MILP) that the City of Helena retaliated against it when the City lowered the priority of MILP's request for funding as a result of an unrelated discrimination MILP had filed against the City, holding that the district court properly dismissed MILP as a plaintiff for lack of standing. In granting the City's motion to dismiss, the district court concluded that Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-301 does not allow non-human entities to sue for retaliation, and therefore, MILP had no standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly held that section 49-2-301 does not allow non-human entities to file retaliation claims under the Montana Human Rights Act.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

State v. Quinlan

Citation: 2021 MT 15

Opinion Date: January 27, 2021

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of incest, holding that the district court did not err by precluding Defendant from introducing extrinsic evidence to challenge the victim's credibility. On appeal, Defendant argued that his defense was prejudiced because he was prohibited from demonstrating the victim's bias or motive to testify falsely and that the court's evidentiary ruling violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Mont. Const. art. II, 24. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not misapply the rules or abuse its discretion in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion by imposing reasonable limits on Defendant's evidentiary inquiries.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043