When Children Stay Home—A COVID-19 Consequence

KATHRYN ROBB

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, describes how the COVID-19 pandemic uniquely endangers children who are being sexually abused by people close to them. Robb describes ways in which teachers, coaches, and other adult figures in children’s lives must do to ensure the safety of children in this time when schools and other safe spaces are shut down.

Read More

Gendron v. Montana University System

Citation: 2018 MT 32

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Shea

Areas of Law: Class Action, Insurance Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court partially denying Appellant's motion for attorney fees, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determination of whether attorney fees awarded to class counsel were reasonable. Appellant filed individual and class action claims against Montana University System (MUS). The parties reached a partial settlement. The district court approved the settlement and appointed Appellant the class representative and her attorneys as class counsel. The court's order provided that class counsel were entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, but the parties were unable to agree to a total attorney fees and costs award. The district court declined to award class counsel their requested fees under a percentage-based calculation and, instead, calculated the fee award by multiplying the hours worked on the case by hourly rates of $275 and $375, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the case for a determination of the interest to which Appellant was entitled, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining whether the attorney fees awarded to class counsel were reasonable; and (2) Appellant was entitled to interest in accordance with Mont. Code Ann. 25-9-205.

State v. Brandt

Citation: 2020 MT 79

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all but one of Defendant's convictions for six felonies stemming from a Ponzi scheme he devised that defrauded investors of $2 million, holding that one of the convictions violated the "multiple charges statute," Mont. Code Ann. 46-11-410, but the rest of the convictions may stand. Defendant was convicted of exploitation of an older person (common scheme), theft by embezzlement, (common scheme), failure to register as a securities salesperson (common scheme), failure to register a security (common scheme), fraudulent practices (common scheme), and operating a pyramid promotion scheme (common scheme). Defendant appealed, arguing that section 46-11-410(2)(a) precluded his convictions on five of the six counts with which he was charged because they were "included offenses" or "specific instances" of fraudulent practices. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's conviction for theft by embezzlement violates section 46-11-410 and must be vacated; but (2) Defendant's remaining convictions do not violate the multiple charges statute.

State v. Jardee

Citation: 2020 MT 81

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's request for credit for time served while he was released on bail during the pendency of his probation revocation proceeding, holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying credit for "street time" served under the sentence. Defendant was sentenced for two counts of felony partner or family member assault. Later, the district court found that Defendant had violated the terms of his suspended sentence. Defendant requested that the district court grant him credit against his sentence under Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-203(7)(b) for four months of "street time" he had served on his sentence between his release on bond and sentencing. The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying street time credit because there was evidence in the record that Defendant committed a violation of his sentence during the relevant period.

Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch v. Petrolia Irrigation District

Citation: 2020 MT 80

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

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

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the findings of the Water Court in adjudicating two of Twin Creeks's water rights claims, holding that the Water court did not err in finding that Twin Creeks abandoned one claim by nonuse but misapprehended the effect of testimony regarding the second claim's historical use. Five Twin Creeks claims were at issue before the Water Court. After a hearing, the Water Court issued a closing order ordering changes to four of the claims and removing the issue remarks. At issue on appeal were the statements of claim 40B109102-00 (the 102 claim) and 40B109104-00 (the 104 claim). The Supreme Court held (1) the Water Court did not err in finding that the 102 claim was abandoned by nonuse because the intent to abandon occurred concurrently with the nonuse; and (2) the Water Court erred finding that Petrolia Irrigation District did not overcome the presumption that the 104 claim was correct as filed.

Turner v. City of Dillon

Citation: 2020 MT 83

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court declining to dismiss Plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim, holding that Plaintiff failed timely to file his complaint in the district court within the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff filed a claim against the City of Dillon and the Dillon Mayor (collectively, Defendants) alleging violation of the Wrongful Discharge of Employment Act (WDEA), Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-905. The City moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court denied the claim. The City then sought dismissal of the action as time barred by a way of summary judgment, which the district court denied. The jury ultimately found that Plaintiff was discharged without good cause and awarded damages of $75,612. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed to timely file his complaint within the one-year limitation period, as required by the WDEA.