The majority of cases before the Montana Supreme Court are decided based upon the written briefs submitted by the parties. However, the Court may decide that a case requires further discussion, in addition to what the parties have argued in their written briefs. In such cases, oral arguments are scheduled in open session before the Court. Approximately 15 cases a year are scheduled for oral argument.
Oral arguments are tightly structured and timed. The counsel for each party is allowed limited time to make an argument. The times typically range from 20 to 40 minutes and are set forth by the Court in the order setting oral argument.
While this format allows the counsel brief opportunity to further develop their arguments, it also gives the Court an opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys on points which the Court needs clarification.
A majority of oral arguments take place in the Montana Supreme Court Courtroom, located at the Joseph P. Mazurek Building, 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. These may be viewed via live web stream: http://youtube.com/channel/UCZISYUyhlnST7YrRIfu-p9g/live. The Court does schedule a few arguments to be heard in different cities around the State. See the list of scheduled oral arguments below.
All oral arguments are open to the public.
Click here to see list of previous oral arguments
MICHAEL JOHNSON, and TERESA JENISCH, Plaintiffs, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees, v. SPIRE HOME INSPECTION, LLC, and KEVIN KIVELA, Defendants, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants. Oral Argument is set for Friday, September 18, 2026, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:00 a.m. and the argument to begin immediately after, at the Northern Hotel in Billings, Montana.
In 2021, Johnson and Jenisch purchased property from the Lundells for $1million. Spire Home Inspection, LLC, conducted a home inspection of the property. Three days later, Spire sent both the inspection report and a “Pre-Inspection Agreement” to Johnson and Jenisch. Johnson and Jenisch had not seen the Agreement prior to the performance of the home inspection and they did not sign the Agreement. In part, the Agreement stated Spire was not liable for the costs of repairing any defects or damage that were not included in its inspection report.
Johnson and Jenisch alleged Spire overlooked several deficiencies in its inspection report and the cost to repair the defects the inspection report will cost over $338,000. However, the District Court concluded Johnson and Jenisch’s damages against Spire are capped at $955, the cost of the inspection.
Johnson and Jenisch believed the District Court incorrectly limited their damages to the cost of the home inspection. They offered to settle the matter for $954 in order to avoid the expense of conducting a trial before asking this Court to review that ruling. Shortly after making the settlement offer, Johnson and Jenisch communicated their intention to immediately appeal the ruling capping the damages amount, but Spire treated the settlement as fully and finally settling the case. The District Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal, Johnson and Jenisch argue the District Court erred in capping damages. Spire argues the parties settled the case and the District Court’s earlier ruling is not appealable.