On June 11, 2021, Kevin Earl Morris was found guilty of one count of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and one count of Solicitation of Tampering with Physical Evidence. Morris now appeals the Eighth Judicial District Court’s rulings on rape shield evidence and a discovery sanction. Morris also appeals the District Court’s imposed probation conditions concerning his contact with minors. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court correctly applied § 45 5 511, MCA, to preclude Morris from presenting evidence related to the victim’s past sexual history and past reports of rape.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court correctly imposed probation conditions that restricted Morris’ contact with minors.
Alan Peter Twardoski appeals the October 26, 2022 Amended Judgment and Commitment Order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, following his felony convictions for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent and Sexual Assault, in violation of §§ 45-5-503 and -502, MCA. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether Twardoski received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to statistical expert testimony.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court’s imposition of a more severe sentence after retrial on remand violated Twardoski’s right to due process.
We affirm.
Kris Hawkins, a self-represented litigant, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Olson Trust as a trustee (collectively Hawkins) appeals from the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s April 24, 2025 Order denying her motion to disqualify Northwestern Corporation’s (Northwestern) counsel, granting Northwestern’s motion to strike the joinder of Terry Wallace as a plaintiff, and granting Northwestern’s September 2024 motion to dismiss. Hawkins only appeals the Order to the extent that it did not allow Hawkins to join Wallace as a plaintiff and dismissed the case. We affirm.
Dennis and Jeannette Burton (Burtons) appeal the order entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Flathead Conservation District (FCD), and upheld the FCD’s denial of Burtons’ application for a “310 permit” to undertake work on their property along the Flathead River. We affirm, and consider:
Whether the District Court erred by granting the FCD’s motion for summary judgment upholding the FCD’s denial of Burtons’ application for a 310 permit.
Tracy Smith appeals pro se from two orders of the Montana First Judicial District Court. The first affirmed the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court of Record’s dismissal of Smith’s covenant-enforcement action against Lourdes Russell. The second affirmed the Justice Court’s attorney fee and cost sanction against Smith. Russell requests appellate sanctions and a remand for determination of the attorney fees and costs she incurred responding to this appeal. We affirm both District Court orders and decline to impose sanctions.
Appellants Edward Kahle and Catherine Kahle (Kahles) appeal from the June 26, 2025 Judgment entered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, in favor of the Estate of Florence Tosch (Estate) for an amount of $331,121.40. The District Court concluded that the Kahles are liable to the Estate for damages under the Montana Residential Landlord Tenant Act (MRLTA); damages arising from fraud and deceit and slander of title; and a declarative judgment ruling a purported 2019 lease with option to purchase (2019 Lease/Option) is void ab initio. We affirm.
We restate the dispositive issues as follows:
1. Whether by clear and convincing evidence the Estate established that the Kahles acted with actual fraud as defined under § 27-1-221, MCA.
2. Whether the Estate properly followed the MRLTA in its post-eviction dealings with the Kahles.
3. Whether the District Court correctly determined damages caused by the Kahles’ forgery of the 2019 Lease/Option and slander of title.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when awarding the Estate its attorney’s fees.
Taralyn DeCock (Taralyn) appeals from the August 25, 2025 deemed denial of her M. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decree of Dissolution ordered by the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, on February 25, 2025. Taralyn asserts the District Court’s deemed denial of her Rule 60 motion was an abuse of discretion and that she is entitled to relief on account of the gross neglect of her prior counsel. Specifically, Taralyn argues that counsel failed to provide her with information regarding her spouse’s retirement assets prior to mediation, which resulted in a distribution of assets that “shocks the conscience.” Additionally, Taralyn argues the District Court’s October 31, 2024 order denying her motion to rescind the Marital and Property Distribution Agreement (MPSA) constitutes reversible error, as the agreement was unconscionable. Further, Taralyn asserts the District Court failed to fulfill its statutory duty to ensure an equitable distribution of assets when it adopted the MPSA into its final decree of dissolution. Taralyn, however, filed her Notice of Appeal on August 29, 2025, 185 days after the District Court issued its final decree of dissolution. While her appeal is timely as to the denial of her Rule 60 motion, her appeal of the District Court’s final decree of dissolution is not. Accordingly, we restate the sole issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it denied Taralyn’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
George and Irene Tuma (the Tumas) appeal from the October 16, 2025 Order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Adam and Amber Britt (the Britts). The court concluded that the 2018 Assignment and Second Amendment of Lease (Second Lease Amendment) was ambiguous as to whether it removed all of Section 5 of the 1992 Lease Agreement and Option to Purchase (1992 Lease), and, after considering extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties’ intent, held that the Britts retained a vested right to acquire an undivided tenancy in common interest in the Parent Tract, with exclusive use of the 10.325 acre leasehold. The court ordered the Tumas to execute a quitclaim deed conveying a 27.5% tenancy in common interest to the Britts. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court correctly determined that the Second Lease Amendment is ambiguous.
2. Whether the District Court correctly considered extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties’ intent to conclude that the Britts purchased an undivided tenancy in common interest in the Parent Tract.
3. Whether the District Court properly evaluated Don Hostak’s testimony in concluding that the Britts retained the ability to acquire the tenancy in common interest.
Terry Lee Hagberg (Hagberg) appeals the July 2023 judgment and sentence of the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI) (4th or subsequent), a felony in violation of § 61 8 1002(1)(b), MCA (2021). Hagberg challenges only one aspect of the judgment: the imposition of a $5,000 fine required by § 61 8 1008, MCA (2021). We affirm the imposition of the $5,000 fine and remand for a determination of Hagberg’s ability to pay.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether Hagberg waived his right to appellate review of a fine imposed by the District Court when he agreed to the fine in his plea agreement and at sentencing.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred by imposing a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine pursuant to § 61 8 1008, MCA, and suspending $2,500 of the fine.
On July 16, 2024, Lisa Rene Johnson (Johnson) was convicted of misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration of 0.08 or More, 1st offense, in violation of § 61-8-1002(1)(b), MCA, following a jury trial in the Gallatin County Municipal Court. Johnson appealed the Municipal Court’s denial of three motions to suppress evidence to the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. On January 29, 2025, the District Court affirmed. We affirm.
The Cook-Reynolds Partnership and Linda Reynolds (collectively, the Partnership or CRP) appeal the Twelfth Judicial District Court’s denial of their M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from an Idaho judgment registered in Montana. We restate and address the following issue:
Whether the District Court erred by denying the Partnership’s motion for Rule 60(b)(4) relief from a foreign judgment.
We reverse.
On March 31, 2025, the District Court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The court dismissed Williams’s trespass and MCPA claims, awarded him $35,000 on his negligence claim for the patio-related repairs, and dismissed the remaining negligence theories.
On appeal from a bench trial, this Court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.
Appellant Davys Arrington (Arrington) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Move and Motion to Amend Final Parenting Plan issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on June 23, 2025.
Arrington asserts the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in adopting the parenting plan proposed by Petitioner Dustin Weidenkeller (Father) in the event Arrington moves to Idaho; (2) violated Arrington’s constitutional right to travel; (3) abused its discretion by relying on incomplete findings, making conclusions without related findings, admitting hearsay, and missing the balance of the parties’ interests; and (4) abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment and treating the case as consolidated with a related case without an order of consolidation. We affirm.
Appellant Davys Arrington (Arrington) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Respondent’s Notice of Intent to Move and Motion to Amend Parenting Plan issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on June 23, 2025.
Arrington asserts the District Court: (1) abused its discretion in adopting the parenting plan proposed by Petitioner Thomas Gambardella (Father) in the event Arrington moves to Idaho; (2) violated Arrington’s constitutional right to travel; (3) abused its discretion by relying on incomplete findings, making conclusions without related findings, admitting hearsay, and missing the balance of the parties’ interests; and (4) abused its discretion by denying relief from judgment and treating the case as consolidated with a related case without an order of consolidation. We affirm.
Dan Patrick McCaul (McCaul) appeals from the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, issued by the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, on November 26, 2025. On June 25, 2026, McCaul filed a separate motion entitled Emergency Motion to Clarify Procedural Posture and Preserve Appellant’s Rights. In his motion, he asserts he will be represented by new legal counsel, that extraordinary circumstances exist, and requests oral argument. The motion does not set forth any emergency or extraordinary circumstances and largely reiterates assertions previously made in his appeal briefing. McCaul has not demonstrated circumstances requiring oral argument. The motion is denied. We affirm.
Greg Gianforte, in his official capacity as the Governor of Montana; Marta Bertoglio, in her official capacity as the Appointed Director of the Department of Commerce; and Misty Ann Giles, in her official capacity as Director of the Montana Department of Administration (collectively, the Governor), appeal the Montana First Judicial District Court’s November 2025 denial of the Governor’s motion to return the case to Judge Kathy Seeley for reassignment pursuant to Senate Bill 41 (SB 41).
We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred when it applied this Court’s existing judicial substitution rule, rather than Senate Bill 41 or the August 28, 2025 memorandum, after all First Judicial District judges had been substituted or had declined jurisdiction.
The State charged Edmund Alvin Adams with incest and sexual intercourse without consent after Adams’s adopted daughter, R.A., disclosed that he molested her. During its investigation, the State discovered that Adams had adopted another daughter, A.P., during his prior marriage. When contacted, A.P. disclosed that Adams also sexually abused her when she was young. The District Court permitted A.P. to testify at trial over Adams’s objection that her testimony was unfairly prejudicial. A Ravalli County jury found Adams guilty on all counts. We address the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it permitted A.P. to testify over Adams’s M. R. Evid. 403 objection?
2. Was Adams’s trial counsel ineffective?
We affirm Adams’s conviction.
DA 24-0706
Trisha Lynn Peterson appeals the Seventh Judicial District Court’s restitution order
following her plea of guilty to criminal mischief and theft by accountability. As part of her
plea, Peterson agreed to pay jointly and severally with her co-defendant, Robert Taylor, all
restitution for a dog-wash machine that she damaged during the course of her offenses.
Peterson challenges the District Court’s award of the replacement value of a new dog-wash
machine instead of its repair cost or, alternatively, the market value of the dog-wash
machine. We affirm.
Ruth Laura Edlund appeals the April 2025 order of the Montana Sixteenth Judicial
District Court, Treasure County, denying her motion for partial summary judgment and
granting the motion of Treasure County, by and through its Board of County
Commissioners (the County), for summary judgment declaring Edlund’s proposed county
ordinance invalid. We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether the District Court correctly concluded that Edlund’s proposed
ordinance was invalid under § 7-5-135, MCA.
2. Whether the District Court issued an advisory opinion.
We affirm.
L.R.H. (Mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights to M.F. issued
July 23, 2025, by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent removal of
M.F. and to reunite Mother with M.F.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not finding guardianship to be the preferred
permanency option and not denying the Petition for Termination.
DA 25-0673
O’Brien raises numerous issues, which we summarize and restate as follows:
1. Whether MTAB improperly considered the validity and reliability of O’Brien’s
appraisal for the first time on appeal or conducted a “trial de novo” on that
issue.
2. Whether MTAB correctly denied O’Brien’s motion for summary judgment.
3. Whether MTAB correctly construed Admin. R. M. 2.51.307(4).
4. Whether “sufficient, relevant information on income” was “made available to
the department” under § 15-8-111(5), MCA.
5. Whether MTAB correctly reversed CTAB’s decision.
Preston Bull (Preston) appeals from the decree of dissolution entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, challenging parenting and financial provisions.
Dr. David Bellamah appeals from the November 22, 2024 order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, granting defendants Dennis E. Lind, Esq., Molly K. Howard Esq., Matthew A. McKeon, Esq., and Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, P.C.’s (hereinafter collectively “DML”) motion for summary judgment. Bellamah asserts the District Court erroneously analyzed his legal malpractice claim as a “lost appeal” claim and, as a result, ignored genuine issues of material fact which precluded summary judgment. We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in granting DML’s motion for summary judgment.
Sebastian Keitel and Avanlee Okragly filed a stipulated final parenting plan for their minor child in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court. The parenting plan contained a provision granting attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in the event of future litigation. Sebastian later sought to hold Avanlee in contempt for violating the plan’s terms. The court denied Sebastian’s motion and awarded Avanlee $14,880 for attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the motion. Sebastian claims that the District Court abused its discretion when it found that this amount was a reasonable attorney fee award. We affirm.
Appellant R.F. (Mother) appeals the order of August 18, 2025, from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granting primary custody of R.J.F. (Child) to the foster parents and dismissing the child dependency cause. We reverse the District Court’s August 18, 2025 Order to Dismiss and remand to the District Court to strike foster parents’ Motion for Dismissal and to issue an order dismissing cause DN 23 294 based on Mother’s successful completion of her treatment plan, meeting the conditions for return, and being a fit parent.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in granting primary custody to the foster parents and dismissing the cause under § 41-3-438(3)(d), MCA.
Petitioners Transparent Election Initiative and Jeff Mangan (“TEI”), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 13-27-605(1), MCA, ask this Court to declare that the Attorney General’s ballot statement for CI-135 violates
§ 13-27-212, MCA, because it fails to provide a true and impartial explanation of the initiative and is argumentative and prejudicial. TEI further asks the Court to alter TEI’s proposed ballot statement and certify the amended ballot statement to the Montana Secretary of State immediately upon this Court’s decision on this matter. Pursuant to this Court’s Order of May 6, 2026, the Attorney General has responded to the petition.
We consider the following issues:
Issue 1. Did the Attorney General exceed his authority under § 13-27-212(1), MCA, in rewriting the ballot statement for CI-135?
Issue 2. Did the Attorney General violate § 13-27-212(1), MCA, by submitting a ballot statement that is inaccurate, argumentative, or prejudicial?
Issue 3. Shall this Court reject the Attorney General’s revised ballot statement, alter TEI’s proposed ballot statement, and certify that amended statement to the Secretary of State?
Defendant and Appellant Isaiah James Pehringer (Pehringer) appeals from the January 24, 2024 Order Following Sentence Review Hearing issued by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, which denied modification of Pehringer’s original sentences.
We address the following restated issue on appeal:
Whether Pehringer was denied statutory rights resulting in substantial injustice when the CCYA was not followed for nearly three years after Pehringer’s original sentences.
We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for application of the CCYA provisions with opportunity to hold a meaningful sentence review hearing after compliance therewith.
Defendant and Appellant Isaiah James Pehringer (Pehringer) appeals from the January 31, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Sentence Modification issued by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which denied modification of Pehringer’s original sentence.
We address the following restated issue on appeal:
Whether Pehringer was denied statutory rights resulting in substantial injustice when the CCYA was not followed for nearly three years after Pehringer’s original sentence.
We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for application of the CCYA provisions with opportunity to hold a meaningful sentence review hearing after compliance therewith.
Matthew Mayfield appeals from the Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which affirmed his misdemeanor conviction of DUI per se from municipal court for operating a noncommercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more under § 61-8-1002(1)(b), MCA. We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the charge with prejudice under § 46-13-401(2), MCA.
On appeal, we address the following issue:
Whether the City demonstrated good cause under § 46-13-401(2), MCA, for the City-requested continuances that delayed Mayfield’s misdemeanor trial beyond the six-month statutory deadline.
Petitioner and Appellant Montana Academy of Salons (MAS) appeals from the January 30, 2025 Order on Petition for Judicial Review issued by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. The District Court denied the petition for judicial review filed by MAS, arising from the Final Order issued by the Montana Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists (Board). The Board’s Final Order rejected the Proposed Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law; and Recommended Order (Recommended Order) of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Hearing Officer—who presided over a multi-day hearing regarding the Board’s proposed action against MAS’s license, which recommended dismissal of the case—and ultimately issued various sanctions against MAS and placed MAS’s school license on probation for a period of five years.
We address the following dispositive issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err when it denied MAS’s petition for judicial review?
Brent Olson appeals the March 28, 2025 Judgment issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, following Olson’s conviction for Incest after a jury trial. The issues on appeal are:
1. Whether the District Court violated Olson’s constitutional right to present a defense and confront witnesses by excluding evidence under Montana’s rape shield statute of alternative sources for the alleged victim’s age-inappropriate sexual knowledge.
2. Whether the District Court’s rape shield rulings unreasonably and unconstitutionally restricted Olson’s right to cross-examine his accuser.
We affirm.
Spencer and Collette Melby sued Bruce and Kim Doering in the Fourth Judicial District Court when their agreement to purchase the Doerings’ property, known as Marshall Mountain, fell through. Doerings challenge the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Melbys on their breach of contract claim. The issue on appeal is whether the parties’ failure to agree to the final terms for seller financing precluded the formation of an enforceable contract under the terms of an already executed Buy-Sell Agreement. We affirm.
Clark Ryan Ramsey appeals from the June 5, 2025 Order of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, declining to relinquish jurisdiction of a child custody matter to the King William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Virginia (Virginia JDR Court). We affirm.
Jeremy Stephen Guess appeals from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s July 7, 2025 Final Order of Protection. Guess does not challenge the order insofar as it protects Chelsey Mae Helt from contact, threats, harassment, abuse, stalking, or proximity by Guess. He challenges only the portions of the order that name the parties’ children as protected minor family members, place the children exclusively with Helt, and eliminate his parenting contact with the children until the parties negotiate and establish parenting time through a parenting plan.
We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion and legally erred when, in a
Title 40, chapter 15, MCA, order-of-protection proceeding, it gave Helt exclusive physical care of the children and eliminated Guess’s parenting contact with his children without making the child-specific findings required by § 40-15-204(4), MCA, and without explaining why supervised visitation would not address the safety concerns proved at the hearing.
Xena Benedetto (Benedetto) appeals from the July 31, 2025 Order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, denying her motion to vacate the filing of a foreign judgment, stay enforcement, and disqualify the petitioner’s attorney. We affirm.
In response, the Department notes that Mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA—the Children have been adjudicated youths in need of care (YINC), Mother did not successfully complete her court-approved treatment plan, and the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit is unlikely to change in a reasonable period of time—which Mother has not challenged on appeal. Further, the Department asserts the District Court correctly determined the Department made diligent efforts to determine the Children were not Indian children under ICWA.
We state the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court correctly determined the Department made diligent efforts in determining the applicability of ICWA.
We affirm.
Sebastian Nathaniel Belcourt (Belcourt) appeals the August 9, 2023 Judgment entered in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, imposing a five-year sentence to the Montana State Prison and two six-month sentences to county detention for his convictions of strangulation of a partner or family member, unlawful restraint, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Belcourt maintains the District Court erred when it prevented him from introducing evidence of the victim’s Internet history to show he did not have the requisite mental state to commit the offense of strangulation of a partner or family member under § 45-5-215(1), MCA. More specifically, Belcourt argues that he strangled the victim to sexually arouse her rather than to impede her air or blood flow as the statute requires. Prior to trial, Belcourt moved the court for a ruling on the admissibility of the Internet history evidence. The District Court denied Belcourt’s motion in limine on March 18, 2023. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence under Mont. R. Evid. 403 of the victim’s Internet history.
John and Lisa Bradley purchased property in the Yellowstone Trails Ranch subdivision that contained an agricultural lot designation. When the Bradleys proposed to remove this designation and develop the property for residential purposes, the Yellowstone Trails Ranch Owners’ Association (YTROA or the Association) opposed their request. The Bradleys sued YTROA, seeking a judgment terminating the property’s agricultural designation. Though the court ordered default judgment for the Bradleys after YTROA failed to respond to the complaint, it later set aside the judgment on YTROA’s motion. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in granting the Association’s motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm.
Jason Haler appeals from the final Order and Judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, in the probate of the Estate of Bradley James Haler. The District Court concluded that funds associated with an $80,000 cashier’s check that Bradley James Haler obtained before his death were the individual property of Rebecca Haler and not an asset of the intestate estate. We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred in holding that the funds associated with an uncashed $80,000 cashier’s check were not an estate asset.
We reverse.
In the Montana Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County, Appellant Michael Todd Smith was found guilty of five counts of Sexual Abuse of Children in violation of § 45-5-625(1)(e), MCA. Smith appeals the District Court’s Order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the Order denying his motion to compel, the admissibility of certain trial exhibits, and the Judgment entering the convictions. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether Smith’s right to a speedy trial was violated.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Smith’s motion to compel.
Issue 3: Whether the District Court abused its discretion under M. R. Evid. 403 by admitting certain exhibits during trial.
We affirm.
Cleve Ernest Spang (Spang) appeals the February 2023 judgment and sentence of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Driving a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI) (4th or subsequent), a felony in violation of § 61 8 401, MCA (2019). Spang challenges only one aspect of the judgment: the imposition of a $5,000 fine required by § 61 8 731, MCA (2019). We affirm the imposition of the fine and remand this case to the District Court to conduct an evaluation of Spang’s ability to pay.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether Spang waived his right to appellate review of a fine imposed by the District Court when he agreed to the fine in his plea agreement.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred by imposing a $5,000 mandatory minimum fine pursuant to § 61 8 731, MCA (2019).
Appellant James “Buck” MacLaurin Jr. (Buck) appeals from the April 18, 2025 Order of the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting Fischer Law, PLLC’s (Fischer) motion to dismiss. We restate and address the following issue:
Whether the District Court erred by concluding that Buck did not plead a viable legal malpractice claim.
We affirm.
David Pritchard appeals pro se various orders of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court entered during dissolution proceedings involving his former wife, Lynlea Cline. We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Pritchard’s motions to set aside the Final Decree.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in awarding Cline a share of equity in the parties’ marital home.
3. Whether Cline is entitled to sanctions.
Pritchard contends he lacked notice of proceedings and that the District Court’s Final Decree unlawfully awarded Cline equity in the parties’ marital home. Cline denies Pritchard’s claims and asks this Court to sanction him for a frivolous appeal. We affirm the District Court on all matters and deny Cline’s request for sanctions.
Ronald Allen Trow (Trow) and Rodney Owen Skurdal (Skurdal) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County alleging that Yellowstone County Justice of the Peace Jeanne Walker violated their rights when she did not allow Skurdal to represent Trow in Trow’s criminal case pending before her. Walker did not allow Skurdal to represent Trow because Skurdal is not an attorney.
Tyler Thomas Snyder appeals his August 2023 judgment and sentence in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. First, Snyder contends that the court committed reversible plain error in accepting his May 2023 guilty pleas on the offenses of DUI and felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs without a sufficient factual basis to do so. Next, Snyder contends that the court illegally sentenced him under § 61-8-1007(1)(a)(ii), MCA, because his 2009 DUI conviction was not a previous conviction for sentencing purposes under § 61-8-1011(1)(b), MCA.
Grant Gage Laman (Laman) appeals from the October 20, 2023 Order entered in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which retained the matter in the District Court rather than transferring the proceeding to Youth Court. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred by maintaining the criminal proceeding in the District Court instead of transferring it to Youth Court.
BMK Enterprises purchased commercial property from Bailey Enterprises in 2018. The Buy-Sell Agreement contained a provision granting BMK the right of first refusal on adjacent property owned by Bailey. BMK sued Bailey for breach of contract after Bailey sold the adjacent property to a third party. The District Court ruled that the right of first refusal provision was unenforceable as a matter of law and granted Bailey summary judgment. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court should have considered extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent before declaring the provision unenforceable. We reverse and remand for that consideration.
Sharon Hathaway Forrest (Forrest) appeals from the June 11, 2025 Order of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, dismissing her appeal from the Gallatin County Justice Court’s December 13, 2024 Damages Judgment in favor of Montana Crestview Apartments (Crestview). We affirm.
The Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance initiated administrative proceedings against Victory Insurance Company for three violations of the Montana Insurance Code. The agency granted summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor and fined Victory $25,000 for each violation. The District Court affirmed the final agency decision. We address the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court err in affirming the agency’s summary judgment ruling that Victory failed to provide its records to the Commissioner in usable form?
2. Did the Commissioner act arbitrarily and capriciously when it ordered Victory to pay the Insurance Code’s maximum permitted fine?
We affirm.
Appellant, J.S. (Mother), natural mother of K.S., appeals from the District Court’s Decree of Guardianship asserting it was made in error as: (1) the District Court erred by failing to provide Mother a treatment plan and make reasonable efforts towards reunification after remand; (2) the District Court erred in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings; (3) the District Court erred by failing to timely hold a dispositional hearing or order a treatment plan, denying visitation, and failing to provide reasonable reunification efforts; and (4) the District Court erred in finding further efforts at reunification would be unproductive. We affirm.
DA 24-0378
Joshua William Myers-Starks appeals his April 2024 judgment and sentence in the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. He argues that the court erred in not ordering any mental examination and failing to independently evaluate his mental condition under §§ 46-14-311 and -312, MCA, as requested at sentencing. He also claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We do not reach all of Myers-Starks’ assertions because we hold that one of these issues is dispositive:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by failing to evaluate Myers-Starks’ mental condition at the time of the offense under §§ 46-14-311 and -312, MCA, as requested at sentencing.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Cody Ann Caraveo appeals her September 2024 sentence on revocation in the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. The only issue she presents is whether the court erroneously denied credit for elapsed time without violations under § 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2023). Caraveo claims she was entitled to 130 days elapsed-time credit—93 days from August 30 through December 1, 2023, and 37 days from April 30 through June 6, 2024. The State disputes the first period but concedes she was entitled to 37 days for the second period. We agree with the State and remand for entry of an amended judgment crediting Caraveo with 37 days elapsed-time credit.
Dennis Steffens appeals his conviction in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, for felony sexual assault in violation of § 45-5-502, MCA. Steffens requests plain error review of his claim that incorrect jury instructions on the requisite mental state violated his due process rights, alternatively claims that his counsel was ineffective for not seeking correct jury instructions, and argues that insufficient evidence of sexual contact supported his conviction. We affirm.
Appellant Karren Kay Schmiedeke (“Schmiedeke”) appeals the Order of Revocation and Disposition entered January 22, 2025, by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Schmiedeke asserts she is entitled to twelve days additional jail time credit and three months additional street time credit. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred by failing to award twelve days of jail credit from Schmiedeke’s 2019 revocation.
2. Whether the District Court erred by failing to award three months of street time from Schmiedeke’s 2019 revocation.
Michelle H. Pope (Pope) appeals from a March 13, 2025 Order of the Fourth Judicial District Court. The District Court granted the Department of Correction’s (DOC) Motion for Summary Judgment. We reverse and remand.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the DOC.
Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred in finding the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation.
Matthew Heaven appeals the June 16, 2025 order of the Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, denying Heaven’s motion to disqualify District Court Judge Molly Owen; declaring Heaven a vexatious litigant; and enjoining Heaven from filing pleadings without leave of the court. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by declaring Heaven a vexatious litigant and imposing the requirement that he first obtains leave of the court before filing any future pleadings.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court correctly denied Heaven’s motion for disqualification.
Issue 3: Whether the District Court transmitted the record on appeal.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Appellant, Stephanie A. LaMarr (LaMarr), appeals from orders of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying her motion to modify the parenting plan and denying additional subsequent motions. We affirm.
Serenity Alana Mann appeals a conviction for Strangulation of a Partner or Family Member, a felony. Following a jury trial, the First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County sentenced Mann to five years in Montana State Prison, all suspended. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by permitting other acts testimony.
Strobel raises numerous issues in both appeals, which we restate as follows. Regarding Strobel’s appeal of his July 2023 sentence on jury verdict in DC 2022-577:
1. Whether the trial court erroneously denied Strobel’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that evidence of a victim’s failure to make a timely complaint does not raise any presumption as to the victim’s credibility.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in controlling the presentation of evidence regarding McAlpin’s inconsistent statements.
4. Whether Strobel has shown reversible plain error based on his unpreserved claims of erroneous admission of propensity evidence, jury instruction error, or prosecutorial misconduct.
5. Whether Strobel’s attorneys were constitutionally ineffective.
6. Whether Strobel has shown cumulative error warranting reversal.
Regarding Strobel’s appeal of his July 2023 sentence on revocation in DC 2019-172:
7. Whether the sentencing court erroneously denied credit for elapsed time without a documented violation.
We affirm on all issues.
Jacob Handy (Jacob) appeals the April 23, 2025 order of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, granting in part Heather Miller’s (Heather) motions to amend the parties’ parenting plan and for contempt and the court’s April 23, 2025 Amended Final Parenting Plan. We address the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by amending the parenting plan without holding an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether the District Court erred by relying on the written assessments of the minor children’s counselor without affording Jacob the opportunity to examine her at an evidentiary hearing.
Zachary Murray appeals an Eighteenth Judicial District Court jury verdict finding Murray 65% negligent when his motorcycle collided with a vehicle driven by Taylor Steinmetz as she pulled out from a parking lot onto a public roadway. We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err in finding that disputed facts precluded it from concluding on summary judgment that Steinmetz was negligent per se?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed a Bozeman Crash Investigator to opine that Murray’s carelessness was a direct cause of the accident?
3. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to admit videos taken weeks after the crash intended to demonstrate traffic conditions and flow at the crash site?
4. Did the District Court manifestly abuse its discretion when it denied Murray’s motion for a new trial under M. R. Civ. P. 59(a)?
We affirm on all issues.
Appellants, Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh (collectively “JCB”), are among nine beneficiaries to the Estate of Ian Elliot. None of the other beneficiaries are parties to this appeal. JCB appeals the Thirteenth Judicial District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Rule 24 (“Motion to Intervene”); Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion for a New Trial or Hearing Under Rule 59, and Relief Under Rule 60 (“New Trial Motion”), and Order Dismissing with Prejudice (“Dismissal Order”). We affirm.
Petitioners Transparent Election Initiative and Jeff Mangan (collectively “TEI”), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 13-27-605(1), MCA, ask this Court to declare the Attorney General erred in determining Ballot Issue 9 (BI-9) legally insufficient because it violates the separate-vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution, and to direct the Attorney General to either approve TEI’s ballot statements or prepare and forward ballot statements to the Secretary of State within five days. At our invitation, the Attorney General has responded in opposition to TEI’s petition. With leave of Court, the Montana Mining Association, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Billings Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Montana Contractor’s Association, Montana Trucking Association, Treasure State Resource Association, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Petroleum Association, and Montana Association of Realtors filed an amicus brief supporting the Attorney General’s determination.
DA 25-0293
Zayne Hert, Amber Hert, and Kelly Hert appeal from the February 25, 2025 Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment issued by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County. The District Court determined Zayne’s claims related to the Montana High School Association (MHSA) declaring him ineligible to play basketball as a fifth‑year senior during the 2023-24 season were moot after the season was completed. We address the following restated issues on appeal:
1. Is this case moot?
2. Did the District Court err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the MHSA?
Christopher Horn appeals from the June 30, 2023 Judgment entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, following his entry of a guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a fourth or subsequent operation of a noncommercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, a felony, in violation of § 61-8-406, MCA (2019). Horn raises the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred by imposing a mandatory-minimum $5,000 fine pursuant to § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019), because the statute is facially unconstitutional.
2. Whether the District Court erred by imposing fees in the written judgment after orally pronouncing that fees would be waived.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Thomas Jerry Hill appeals his conviction of attempted robbery from the Fourth Judicial District Court upon his plea of guilty. At his change of plea hearing, Hill raised concern about a speedy trial violation and said he wanted to “keep that on record.” When the State pointed out that no such motion had been filed, the District Court noted Hill’s concern but said it would not receive briefs on the issue. Hill alleges that the District Court’s refusal to accept briefs was an abuse of discretion and, alternatively, if not preserved, that we should review his claim for plain error. We affirm.
David Wayne Hyslop (Hyslop) appeals from the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying his petition for postconviction relief which was premised primarily on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Hyslop’s petition for postconviction relief.
We affirm.
Stacey Kelly appeals the Tenth Judicial District Court’s order denying her motion to set aside the final decree of distribution of her deceased husband’s estate. Stacey claims that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied her motion, arguing that she is entitled to relief under M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the personal representative failed to notify her of the proceedings and failed to distribute to her sufficient assets to satisfy her intestate share. Because Stacey failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), we affirm.
Erik Joseph Kalafat appeals from the May 30, 2025 Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, dismissing Kalafat’s Petition for Judicial Review and Revocation of the suspension of his driver’s license under Montana’s implied-consent law. The single issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by granting the State’s motion to dismiss Kalafat’s petition as moot.
J.C. (Father) appeals the order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, terminating his parental rights. Father argues the District Court erroneously attributed the conduct of R.B. (Mother) to Father when it found Father subjected the children to chronic abuse or neglect and terminated his rights pursuant to §§ 41-3-609(1)(d) and 41-3-423(2)(a), MCA. Father further asserts the District Court erred in terminating his parental rights pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, for his failure to comply with the court ordered treatment plan. Father alleges that the treatment plan was not appropriate and that the District Court erred in finding the conduct or condition rendering him unable to parent unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Additionally, Father argues the District Court abused its discretion by failing to consider a guardianship in lieu of terminating his parental rights. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights.
2. Whether the District Court erred in not considering a guardianship in lieu of terminating Father’s parental rights.
Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) appeals from an order issued by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, dated September 12, 2025, which denied his emergency motion for temporary custody and dismissed his petition for a permanent parenting plan without prejudice. The District Court concluded that Montana was no longer the home state of R.A.A. because she had not lived in Montana for more than two years and noted that under Montana law it must recognize and enforce a child custody determination made in a foreign country. We affirm.
The State appeals the December 16, 2024 Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which preliminarily enjoined Senate Bill 458; Montana Administrative Rule 37.8.311(5) (2022 Rule); and a 2024 Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) policy (collectively, “State Policies”), as they relate to the amendment of birth certificates and driver’s licenses. Jessica Kalarchik and Jane Doe (Plaintiffs) filed this action on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated. The District Court found the State Policies likely violate Montana’s Equal Protection clause. The District Court concluded that Plaintiffs succeeded in establishing each of the four preliminary injunction factors and thus preliminarily enjoined the State from enforcing the State Policies as they pertain to amending birth certificates and driver’s licenses. We affirm.
We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the State Policies.
2. Whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion when it preliminarily enjoined the State Policies.
Michael Ross Trombley appeals the Twentieth Judicial District Court’s November 9, 2023 combined judgment revoking a 2015 suspended sentence and imposing sentences in three additional cases. Trombley challenges only two aspects of the combined judgment: first, a $5,000 fine required by § 61-8-1008(1)(a)(i), MCA (2021), which the District Court fully suspended; and second, a provision in the judgment giving the probation office the authority to “reinstate the suspended [fines and fees] . . . if they find reason that Defendant is not complying with the terms of his probation.” The State concedes Trombley’s second argument and urges the Court otherwise to affirm. We affirm the imposition and suspension of the $5,000 fine and remand for entry of an amended judgment.
Plaintiff Daniel W. Torgison (Torgison) appeals the Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction entered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, which denied his request for injunctive relief based upon alleged violations of open meeting and right to participate laws. We consider:
Whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by denying Torgison’s motion for preliminary injunction.
We affirm.
Kenneth Wesley Rowe appeals his November 2023 Judgment and Sentence in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. The only issue he raises is whether Condition 29 of his sentence, which, as pertinent, says that he shall not possess “any material that describes or depicts human nudity,” is unreasonable, overly broad, and has no nexus to him or the offenses of which he was convicted.
Skylar Ittner appeals pro se the October 2024 order of the Montana First Judicial District Court affirming the judgment of the City of Helena Municipal Court ordering Ittner to pay $1,254.90 in restitution. The District Court also affirmed Ittner’s July 2023 conviction on bench trial for the misdemeanor offense of Changing Lanes When Unsafe to Do So (§ 61-8-328(1), MCA), but Ittner does not appeal that aspect of the District Court’s judgment. On appeal, Ittner contends that the Municipal Court’s restitution award was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore erroneous. He also alleges that his due process rights were violated at sentencing.
James Dolan, Jr. and Samantha Dolan appeal the Eighteenth Judicial District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Tracy and Jesse Guenther and its subsequent denial of the Dolans’ partial summary judgment motion. On both motions, the District Court concluded that the Dolans did not have a ditch easement and, therefore, did not have a claim against the Guenthers for ditch interference. We restate the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court correctly determine that the Dolans do not hold an implied easement by existing use to a ditch that crosses the Cobb Hill Minor Subdivision property?
2. Are the Guenthers entitled to attorney fees and costs, including those incurred on appeal?
Though we do not adopt all of the District Court’s rationale, we affirm its rulings. Because the Guenthers accordingly are entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, we remand for the District Court to determine a reasonable amount of fees and costs.
Amber Rose D’Hooge appeals the Fourth Judicial District Court’s Order denying her motion for partial summary judgment on breach of promissory estoppel and breach of contract and the Order granting Cincinnati Insurance Company’s (Cincinnati) motion for summary judgment on all her claims. We restate and address the following issues:
Issue 1: Whether a third-party claimant can assert causes of action against an insurer other than statutory or common law bad faith under the version of § 33-18-242, MCA, that was effective prior to the 2023 amendments.
Issue 2: Whether the District Court erred by concluding that D’Hooge could not prove the elements of promissory estoppel, breach of contract, spoliation, and equitable estoppel.
Issue 3: Whether the District Court erred by concluding that D’Hooge failed to raise claims for unjust enrichment, negligent and intentional interference with economic advantage, and constructive fraud.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Sapphire Coalition (Sapphire) appeals the Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s January 28, 2025 Order granting Ravalli County’s (the County) motion to dismiss Sapphire’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Sapphire appeals the District Court’s order pertaining to Sapphire’s claims for declaratory relief but does not appeal the dismissal of its petition for writ of mandamus. We restate and address the following dispositive issue:
Whether the District Court erred by concluding the County’s subdivision regulations do not require the Planning Department to provide public notice prior to approving a subdivision exemption.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
The State appeals the November 15, 2024 Opinion and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Order”) of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. The District Court held that House Bill 937 (“HB 937”) and Admin. R. M. 37.106.3101 through 37.106.3114 (2024) (“the Rules”) likely violate the Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights under the Montana Constitution. The District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs properly demonstrated that each of the four elements of the preliminary injunction standard were met and preliminarily enjoined HB 937 and the Rules in their entirety. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction that enjoined HB 937 and the Rules in their entirety?
Thomas Curran appeals his 2023 sentence from the City of Whitefish Municipal Court for Operating a Motor Vehicle with a BAC of .08% or Greater (DUI per se), first offense. Curran appealed to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Municipal Court’s Judgment. On appeal before this Court, Curran argues that the Municipal Court improperly imposed a $600 suspended fine that he lacked the ability to pay. We affirm.
Appellant Jaimie Thomas (Jaimie), personal representative for Sean Edward Thomas’ estate (the Estate), appeals the March 2025 order of the Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, granting a “Preliminary Injunction” to Appellees Paul Thomas, Thomas, Inc., and Teton Village, L.L.C. (collectively, Paul). We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to restrain Jaimie’s conduct as personal representative.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in restraining Jaimie’s conduct by requiring her to seek prior court approval for any estate distributions.
3. Whether the District Court was required to impose a bond.
We affirm.
The Attorney General correctly refused to consider the opponents’ substantive constitutional arguments.
This Court declines, too, to entertain on the merits the Petitioners’ facial constitutional challenges to the proposed ballot measure.
Luke Venters (Luke) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution entered July 31, 2025, by the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, adopting the amended proposed parenting plan proposed by Gretchen Venters (Gretchen) which required Luke’s parenting time with the parties’ minor child to be supervised at a supervised visitation facility.
Domingo Baez, Jr., (Baez) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Parenting Plan, Decree, and Order Amending Order of Protection entered March 7, 2025, by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, pursuant to which the District Court adopted a final parenting plan that placed primary residential custody of the parties’ minor child with Hannah Galia Snelson (Snelson) and granted Baez structured parenting time; and maintained a five-year order of protection, amending it to permit parenting exchanges and limited communications about the parties’ child through a structured parenting application. He also appeals interlocutory and final orders.
George Barrett (George) appeals from the January 2, 2025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution issued by the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Musselshell County. We affirm.
Bobby Francis Lowry appeals from the Fourth Judicial District Court’s order dismissing his petition for judicial review and affirming the State Electrical Board’s (Board) final decision to sanction Lowry. We affirm.
T.J.M. suffers from chronic, severe mental illness with schizophrenia, psychosis, and bipolar disorder. He has a history of at least three prior in-patient treatments and participation with the Great Falls Program for Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) and community-based group homes. Despite these interventions, T.J.M. has not been successful in maintaining his antipsychotic medications as prescribed and has experienced significant exacerbations requiring reintervention. T.J.M. appeals the involuntary commitment order issued May 6, 2024, by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Montana. He asserts the District Court improperly appointed a mental health clinician as the “friend of respondent” for purposes of § 53-21-122(2)(b), MCA, and that his rights were not validly waived. We affirm.
The State appeals from an order of the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, dismissing its prosecution of Daniel Santos Pratt for failure to register as a sexual offender. The District Court concluded that retroactive application of the Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (SVORA) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Montana Constitution and Pratt’s rights under the Restoration of Rights Clause. We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the charge where the State prosecuted Pratt under the 2023 Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act, which cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to a defendant whose conviction predates the 2007 amendments.
Because the State charged Pratt under the 2023 version of SVORA—a statutory scheme this Court has held is punitive and may not be applied retroactively to defendants whose convictions predate its enactment—we affirm.
Michael Ross Trombley (Trombley) appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss and the subsequent written judgment entered against him finding him guilty of Bail Jumping, a felony in violation of § 45-7-308, MCA, entered in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, on November 9, 2023. Trombley contends that § 45-7-308, MCA, is unconstitutionally vague and that the State failed to allege sufficient facts to establish probable cause that Trombley had committed Bail Jumping when the State did not allege any facts to show that Trombley did not have a “lawful excuse” when he failed to appear at the court date he was ordered to attend. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether Montana’s offense of Bail Jumping, codified at § 45-7-308, MCA, is unconstitutionally vague.
2. Whether the State alleged sufficient facts to establish probable cause for the offense of Bail Jumping when it did not allege any facts to show that Trombley did not have a “lawful excuse” not to appear at the court hearing he was ordered to attend.
Roaring Lion Ranch, LLC, Sawtooth Ranch, LLC, and Richard and Shelley Knight (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued YC Properties for abuse of process and malicious prosecution arising from its conduct in a prior water rights dispute. YC Properties moved to dismiss the suit. The Twenty-First Judicial District Court sua sponte converted YC’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, ruled in YC’s favor, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it converted YC’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant, Christopher Sanchez (Sanchez), appeals from the District Court’s second revocation order issued by the Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Montana on January 3, 2024. We reverse in part and remand for correction of the disposition.
The issue on appeal is:
Whether the District Court’s disposition of January 3, 2024, illegally extended Sanchez’s sentence when it included the probationary period of Sanchez’s custodial sentence in its revocation of the suspended portion.
Guy Nevin (Nevin) appeals from the April 11, 2025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment entered in the Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County. The District Court found him in contempt and ordered him to pay $72,800 in child support to his former wife, Tanya Saueressig (Saueressig), while denying his motion to find her in contempt. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC (MAID) facially challenged the constitutionality of several zoning and land use bills enacted during the 2023 legislative session. The State of Montana and several intervenors defended the new laws. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court entered a declaratory judgment, concluding that the challenged housing reform bills do not violate the constitutional right to equal protection and did not supplant private restrictive covenants. It enjoined several sections that the court determined violated Montana’s constitutional right to participate. The parties appeal and cross-appeal the District Court’s rulings. We consider the following restated issues on appeal:
1. Do MAID’s claims that the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA) violates Montanans’ right to participate present a justiciable controversy?
2. Do the challenged laws facially violate the public’s constitutional right to participate in site-specific land use decisions?
3. Do the challenged land use statutes violate the right to equal protection by irrationally and detrimentally burdening certain classes of citizens?
We agree that MAID’s challenges to the MLUPA’s public participation provisions are justiciable. We reverse the District Court’s conclusion that the MLUPA facially violates the constitutional right to participate. We affirm the District Court’s determination that the housing reform statutes do not violate the right to equal protection. We vacate its declaratory ruling on private restrictive covenants as nonjusticiable.
Neil Dennis Cole appeals the fine imposed for his April 6, 2023 conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, entered in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. After determining that Cole did not have the ability to pay the $5,000 mandatory fine, the District Court suspended $4,900 of it “based on his successful completion of the conditions of probation” and “continued good compliance.” We restate and address the following issue:
Whether the District Court legally imposed the $5,000-minimum fine mandated by § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019), when it suspended the portion Cole could not pay.
We affirm.
The State of Montana appeals from a January 29, 2025 order of the Fourth Judicial District Court. The District Court dismissed the State’s petition to revoke Andrew Emmings’ suspended sentence and struck the order of the prior District Court Judge which had revoked Emmings’ conditional discharge from supervision. We reverse and remand.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Did the District Court violate the law of the case when it struck a previous order of a different judge on the same case, after Emmings failed to appeal the previous order?
Issue Two: Did the District Court err in holding an individual on conditional discharge from supervision may terminate the remaining time on his sentence by moving out of state pursuant to § 46 23 1020, MCA?
Issue Three: Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it held the previous judge banished Emmings from the State of Montana and imposed impossible conditions of supervision?
Andrew Larson appeals from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. Larson entered a no-contest plea to the charges filed against him but reserved the right to appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. We consider:
Did the District Court err by denying Larson’s motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial?
We affirm.
Alejandro Flores-Reyes appeals from the denial by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a warrantless search of a Nissan Rogue he was driving. Flores-Reyes argues on appeal that the search was unconstitutional; that the District Court lacked authority to reinstate a previously dismissed information; and that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object and affirmatively stipulating to the admission of testimonial hearsay. We hold that the constitutionality of the search is dispositive and therefore do not reach the other issues. Thus, we address the following restated issue:
Whether the contents of a closed, zippered pouch discovered in a concealed compartment of the vehicle was the fruit of an unconstitutional search.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On November 30, 2022, the Eighth Judicial District Court sentenced Sancha Marie Valenzuela to a three-year deferred sentence on each of two counts of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, to run concurrently. The court placed numerous conditions on Valenzuela’s deferred sentence. The court revoked the deferred sentence in April 2024 and committed her to the Department of Corrections. It awarded Valenzuela concurrent three-year terms with 172 days credit for time served and 148 days for elapsed (“street”) time. Valenzuela challenges the street time credit on appeal. With the exception of four additional days, we affirm.
Kevin Wesley Sandberg appeals his Fourth Judicial District Court jury convictions of sexual intercourse without consent, aggravated kidnapping, and robbery. Sandberg argues that reversal of his convictions is warranted on the basis that the District Court erred in permitting pervasive reference to Tammany Andrade—the complaining witness—as “victim” throughout trial, undermining Sandberg’s right to be presumed innocent and depriving him of a fair trial. Sandberg also asserts that reversal is warranted on the grounds that the District Court abused its discretion in overruling his M. R. Evid. 402 and M. R. Evid. 404(b) objections, allowing the State to introduce irrelevant and inadmissible character evidence. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether Sandberg was deprived of a fair trial by repeated and pervasive use of the word “victim” in reference to the complaining witness.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting Sandberg’s statement to his girlfriend requesting she “wipe” his phone over Sandberg’s Rule 402 and Rule 404(b) objections.
Justin Stinger appeals from his Fourth Judicial District Court jury conviction of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA) by Reasonable Apprehension (3rd or Subsequent Offense), Destruction/Tampering of a Communication Device, Aggravated Assault by Reasonable Apprehension, Strangulation of Partner or Family Member (1st Offense), and PFMA Causing Bodily Injury (3rd or Subsequent Offense). Stinger asserts he was denied due process from the outset of his case, and his conviction was the result of cumulative error. Specifically, Stinger argues that law enforcement officers filed false reports and breached protocol, he experienced judicial bias at his initial sentencing hearing, the District Court lacked control over the proceedings at trial, and the State knowingly presented false or misleading testimony which it then failed to correct. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether Stinger’s unpreserved claims warrant plain error review.
2. Whether the cumulative effect of errors warrants a new trial.
Kevin Anthony Briggs appeals the Gallatin County District Court’s April 2025 denial of postconviction relief. We address the following restated issues:
1. Whether Briggs’ trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for seeking withdrawal from representation but retaining payments under the parties’ fixed fee contract.
2. Whether appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court erred in not appointing separate counsel to represent Briggs at the withdrawal hearing.
Melissa Bartkowski and Graham Murphy divorced in 2022 after approximately five years of marriage. They agreed to a parenting plan that provided for shared parenting of their daughter, A.M. In 2024, Melissa’s daughter from a previous marriage disclosed that Graham had sexually abused her in 2019. Melissa petitioned the court to modify the parenting plan to prohibit Graham from having unsupervised visitation with A.M. The District Court declined to do so, concluding that Melissa failed to provide sufficient evidence for it to find a change in A.M.’s circumstances as required by § 40-4-219(1), MCA. We address the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court err when it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that Graham posed a threat to A.M.’s safety?
2. Did the District Court err when it presided over the hearing via two-way audio video communication?
We affirm.
Jessie James Standifur appeals the order of the First Judicial District Court, Broadwater County, denying his motion to dismiss Count I of the Information charging him with criminal possession of dangerous drugs, methamphetamine, in violation of § 45 9-102(1), MCA. Standifur contends that after he entered his guilty plea to Count II, criminal possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of § 45-10-103, MCA, Montana’s “same transaction” rule and statutory double-jeopardy protections—§ 46-11-503(1)(b), MCA—barred further prosecution of Count I. We address the following restated issue:
Whether § 46-11-503(1)(b), MCA, bars continued prosecution of an unresolved count when all charges were filed in a single criminal proceeding and the defendant has pleaded guilty to other counts charged in that criminal proceeding.
We affirm.
Appellant Amanda Sharyce Walton appeals the judgment of the Montana Seventh Judicial District Court following her conviction on the following charges:
(1) Sexual Abuse of Children Under 12 Years of Age by Accountability in violation of §§ 45-5-625, 45-2-301, MCA, alleging that Walton abetted her husband, Monte Walton, Sr.’s (Monte) possession of child pornography on or before July 2022;
(2) Incest (Victim Under 12 Years of Age) by Accountability in violation of §§ 45-5-507, 45-2-301, MCA, alleging that Walton assisted Monte in his sexual abuse of her son, R.H., between January 2008 and January 2010;
(3) Incest (Victim Under 16 Years of Age and Offender 3 or More Years Older) in violation of § 45-5-507, MCA, alleging that Walton sexually abused her daughter, E.W., between January 2015 and January 2017; and
(4) Endangering the Welfare of Children in violation of § 45-5-622, MCA, alleging that Walton exposed E.W., R.H., and her two other children to methamphetamine or methamphetamine paraphernalia.
Christopher Paul Roope appeals the November 8, 2024 Judgment and Commitment of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, entered after he was convicted in a jury trial of seven counts of Partner or Family Member Assault (PFMA), two counts of Tampering with Witnesses or Informants, Strangulation of a Partner or Family Member, Solicitation of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, and Bail Jumping, all felonies. Except for Bail Jumping, the charges arose from Roope’s interactions with his former wife, L.R. Roope argues he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) and that the District Court committed plain error by inferring from his silence and from his counsel’s statement resting the defense that he was waiving his right to testify in his own defense. We affirm Roope’s convictions without prejudice to Roope’s right to pursue postconviction relief.
Petitioners Theresa Kendrick, Claudia Clifford, and Montanans Decide (collectively “Proponents”) seek review under § 13-27-605(5), MCA, of the Attorney General’s determination that Ballot Issue 8 (“BI-8”) is legally insufficient because it violates Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution. Proponents request that we reverse the legal-sufficiency determination and direct the Attorney General to prepare and forward ballot statements to the Secretary of State within five days. Proponents also challenge the Attorney General’s decision to append a fiscal statement to BI-8, asserting the fiscal note does not indicate a fiscal impact. With leave of Court, amici Campaign Legal Center, Montana Federation of Public Employees, et al., and Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, et al., filed briefs in support of Proponents.
Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA, provides this Court original jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s legal-sufficiency determination. We accept original jurisdiction. We conclude BI-8 constitutes a single constitutional amendment under Article XIV, Section 11, and the Attorney General lacked statutory authority to append a fiscal statement. The petition is granted.
We address the following issues:
1. Whether BI-8 violates the separate vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.
2. Whether the Attorney General had authority to append a fiscal statement to BI 8.
Richard James Haacke (Haacke) appeals from his conviction in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony in violation of § 45-9-102, MCA, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor in violation of § 45-10-103, MCA. We consider:
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by denying Haacke’s motion to strike juror M.W. for cause?
We affirm.
Centron Services, Inc., d/b/a Rocky Mountain Professional Solutions (Centron), appeals the order of the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granting summary judgment in favor of Christopher and Alyson C. Hollewijn (Hollewijns), arguing the District Court erred by dismissing the entire lawsuit when the Hollewijns’ motion addressed only one of five separate debt accounts and by resolving a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the Hollewijns’ objection to the remaining account.
We address the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred when it dismissed the entire suit after granting Hollewijns’ motion for summary judgment which addressed only one of five accounts within the suit.
2. Whether the District Court erred when it granted summary judgment by determining a question of fact.
We reverse.
Felicia Marie Hinkle (Hinkle) appeals the Sentencing Order and Judgment entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, after a jury trial, convicting her of the charges of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. She challenges the District Court’s denial of her motion to discharge the jury panel without conducting a hearing. Thus, we consider:
Whether the District Court erred by denying Hinkle’s motion to discharge the jury panel without conducting a hearing.
We affirm.
Adam Kadry Haggag (Haggag) appeals from a permanent order of protection restraining him from his children, A.H. and J.H., which was entered in the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips County, on June 5, 2025. The District Court held that the order of protection would remain permanent until each minor child reached their eighteenth birthday. The order incorporated a prior order entered in Cause No. DR-2021-013, Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips County, on June 28, 2022, which permanently restrained Haggag from Shanah Lee Darrah (Darrah) and restrained Haggag from A.H. and J.H. until October 31, 2022, to allow time for Haggag to pursue a parenting plan modification and comply with recommendations designed to improve his parenting. After careful review of the record, we affirm the permanent order of protection for A.H. and J.H.
On September 23, 2025, the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, pursuant to § 40-15-204, MCA, entered a permanent order of protection for David Warwood (Warwood) against Scott Florer (Florer). William Powell (Powell) also sought an order of protection against Florer, and the District Court combined the petitions for purposes of a hearing. The District Court did not enter an order of protection for Powell because Powell did not want to testify, although he testified on behalf of Warwood. Florer appeals the order of protection entered for Warwood.
Trout Unlimited appeals the Water Court’s decision to generate implied rights in adjudicating the water right claims of James R. Melin and the Petrich Family Limited Partnership (“Petrich”) (collectively “Claimants”). Melin and Petrich cross-appeal the Water Court’s determination that Trout Unlimited had standing to object and its partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Trout Unlimited. We address the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether Trout Unlimited had standing to object to Melin’s and Petrich’s claims issued in the Water Court’s Preliminary Decree for Basin 43B.
2. Whether the Montana Water Court erred in limiting Petrich’s and Melin’s decreed periods of use and diversion to May 1 to July 15.
3. Whether the Montana Water Court erred in generating implied claims outside the decreed period of use.
We affirm the Water Court’s conclusion that Trout Unlimited had standing to object and its grant of partial summary judgment. We reverse the Water Court’s generation of implied rights and remand for further consideration.
Willie Antoine Redd appeals a conviction in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. Following a jury trial, Redd was found guilty of Aggravated Assault after Redd assaulted his girlfriend’s three year old daughter, causing serious injuries. The court sentenced Redd to twenty years in Montana State Prison (MSP) and ordered $53,934.97 in restitution. We affirm.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court erred in denying Redd’s motion to dismiss alleging a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
Issue Two: Whether Redd’s initial appearance was held without unnecessary delay.
Issue Three: Whether the District Court erred in denying Redd’s motion to dismiss alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Darrin William Matt (“Matt”) appeals the April 5, 2023 Judgment entered in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, sentencing him to 24 years in the Montana State Prison for felony Assault on a Peace Officer in violation of § 45 5 210, MCA. We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part for resentencing.
We restate the dispositive issues on appeal as follows:
Issue One: Whether the District Court illegally sentenced Matt for exercising his constitutional rights.
Issue Two: Whether this Court should exercise plain error review to consider Matt’s claim that alleged police misconduct violated his right to due process.
Steven Joseph Johnson (Johnson) appeals his conviction for Criminal Mischief, Burglary, and Bail Jumping entered on May 22, 2023, in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court violated Johnson’s right of confrontation by allowing the State’s witness to testify in real time by two-way videoconferencing.
Appellants World Business Lenders (collectively, WBL) appeals from a decision of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court denying WBL’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions in loan documents between WBL and Appellees Bluebird Property Rentals, LLC and Alaina Garcia, (collectively, Bluebird). The District Court found that the arbitration provisions in the loan documents were unenforceable because they were buried in fine print and were in direct conflict with the bold, capitalized language that Bluebird was waiving her right to trial by jury, thus rendering the loan documents ambiguous and unenforceable. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the District Court.
We restate the dispositive issue on appeal:
Whether the District Court erred when it determined arbitration was not enforceable because the language of the Loan Documents was ambiguous.
Juan Anastasio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief (PCR) by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, whereby he challenged his 2017 conviction, after jury trial, of one count of sexual intercourse without consent upon J.S., the alleged victim, who was then about 15 years of age. We affirm.
Curtis P. Bunse appeals from his bench-trial conviction in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, for Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in violation of § 45 9-102, MCA. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant, Chelsie Lael Kennedy (Chelsie), representing herself pro se, appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Amended Parenting Plan and Final Parenting Plan issued August 14, 2025, by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Montana. We affirm.
Matthew Cool (Matthew) appeals from the Final Parenting Plan entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court following dissolution of his marriage to Abigail Cool (Abigail). He argues the District Court clearly erred in characterizing his work schedule as “ever-changing,” abused its discretion in weighing the best-interests factors under § 40 4-212, MCA, and improperly curtailed his parenting time with the parties’ two minor sons.
Lauren Difolco and Sherry Spear filed sex discrimination claims with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Human Rights Bureau after the Montana State Hospital awarded their male coworker, Trent Martin, a promotion. The Hearing Officer found that the Hospital hired Martin based on his interview performance and did not discriminate against Spear and Difolco. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) affirmed. The District Court reversed, concluding that five of the Hearing Officer’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. The court awarded damages and attorney fees to Difolco and Spear. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court exceeded its authority under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act when it reversed the HRC’s decision. We reverse the District Court and reinstate the HRC’s final agency decision.
Allen appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his Complaint and its failure to rule on his motion for leave to amend the Complaint.
José Batista appeals from the Post Trial Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, dissolving his marriage with Alexandra Long (Allie) and distributing their marital estate. We restate the issues as follows: (1) whether the District Court abused its discretion when valuing and distributing the marital estate; (2) whether the District Court erred by not considering Allie’s dissipation of marital assets; and (3) whether the District Court applied the correct legal standard in dividing the marital estate. We affirm.
K.A.B. appeals the First Judicial District Court’s denial of his postconviction relief petition, which challenged a 2004 dispositional order arising out of a juvenile adjudication that included a requirement to register as a sex offender
Sean Doman filmed Kalispell police officers during a traffic stop while he stood on a public sidewalk. Officers arrested Doman for failing to comply with one officer’s orders to move down the street away from the stopped vehicle. The City cited Doman for obstructing a peace officer in violation of § 45-7-302, MCA. A Kalispell Municipal Court jury found Doman guilty. On appeal, Doman argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and that § 45-7-302(2), MCA, is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case. We address the following restated issues on appeal:
1. Could any rational trier of fact have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Doman knowingly obstructed, impaired, or hindered the enforcement of the criminal law?
2. Is Doman entitled to reversal of his conviction for plain error on his claim that § 45 7-302(2), MCA, as applied, violates his free speech rights?
We affirm.
Appellants Pole Creek Ranch LLC and Staubach Creek Ranch LLC, owned and operated by Jeff and Marie Hoeffner (Hoeffner), appeal the February 2025 order of the Broadwater County District Court denying Hoeffner’s dissatisfied water user complaint and affirming the court-appointed Water Commissioner’s distribution of Beaver Creek water. Appellees are CX Ranch LLP (CX Ranch), Darrell E. Baum and Douglas B. Baum (Baum), and Irvin G. Riis (Riis). We address the following restated issues:
1. Was the Water Commissioner required to administer Beaver Creek water pursuant to the 2018 Amended Stipulation and Agreement, as incorporated in the 2018 Water Court order and 2022 Preliminary Decree for Basin 41I?
2. Did the District Court erroneously dismiss Hoeffner’s dissatisfied water user complaint and affirm the Water Commissioner’s Beaver Creek water distribution?
We hold that the Water Commissioner was required to administer the subject water rights pursuant to the governing 2022 Preliminary Decree for Basin 41I, which incorporated the 2018 Water Court order, and that the District Court failed to determine whether the Water Commissioner’s distribution practices comported with that decree.
Billie Jo Henderson appeals from her Eighth Judicial District Court jury conviction for felony theft of property valued at over $1,500 but less than $5,000. Henderson asserts the District Court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce text messages between Henderson’s co-defendant, Teona Baker, and the complaining witness, Sharen Zeman. The State concedes that the text messages were hearsay and inadmissible but argues the District Court’s error in admitting the messages was harmless. The sole issue on appeal is as follows:
Whether the District Court’s error of allowing the State to present inadmissible hearsay text messages between the complaining witness and co-defendant at trial was harmless.
Intervenor, M.L.O.-L.’s maternal grandmother, timely appeals from the September 30, 2025 “Order Approving Permanency Plan and Denying Intervenor’s Request for Placement” of M.L.O.-L. entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by approving adoption as the permanency plan and denying Intervenor Grandmother’s request for placement of M.L.O.-L.
We affirm.
Appellant and Cross-Appellee, Whitefish Housing Authority (WHA or Appellant), appeals the Judgment in favor of Appellee and Cross-Appellant, Lori Collins (Collins or Appellee), entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, which awarded Collins damages after a jury trial on her claim for defamation. We consider on appeal:
1. Whether the District Court erred by admitting the subject Article into evidence over Appellant’s hearsay objection.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s Motion to Amend Judgment to apply the statutory cap.
We consider on cross-appeal:
3. Whether the District Court erred by denying Appellee’s motion for attorney fees for defending against counterclaims allegedly made in bad faith.
We affirm.
J.A. (Father) appeals the January 2, 2025 Order issued by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminating his parental rights to his children S.A. and J.P.
We address the following restated issues on appeal:
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it terminated Father’s parental rights.
2. Whether Father may assert claims on behalf of the Tribes related to a general tribal preference for guardianships over terminations.
We affirm.
Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson (the Atkinsons) appeal from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the City of Livingston (the City) on their claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. We address the following restated issue:
Whether the District Court erred when it held that the statute of repose found in § 27-2-208, MCA (2023), barred the Atkinsons’ claims against the City for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Because the claims are barred by the statute of repose set forth in § 27-2-208, MCA (2023), we affirm and do not reach the remaining issues raised on appeal.
In December 2022, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division, received reports that two-year-old R.L.B. was in danger of being abused or neglected after law enforcement received a call for domestic disturbance and assault in the home. At that time, Mother was the legal custodian of R.L.B., and Father’s last known location was Bend, Oregon. The Department removed R.L.B. from the home and placed him with his paternal step-grandparents.
Thomas Steiger (Steiger) appeals from the July 11, 2025 Order of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for Lincoln County, granting the Motion to Amend Parenting Plan (Order). We affirm.
John D. Munro appeals the Order of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, denying his Motion to Vacate Final Judgment.
Based on the State’s and Lally’s agreement as to the amount of elapsed time credit Lally was due, the District Court granted Lally 616 days of elapsed time credit. Lally contends on appeal that he was due 718 days of elapsed time credit and that the District Court erroneously denied him 102 days.
Lorenzo Harris appeals his conviction for deliberate homicide following a six-day bench trial in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. Harris does not challenge his conviction for tampering with witnesses and informants. He challenges the deliberate homicide conviction, arguing that due process required the District Court, sitting as factfinder, to consider mitigated deliberate homicide before convicting him of deliberate homicide.
We address the following restated issue:
Whether Harris has shown plain error based on the District Court’s failure to consider mitigated deliberate homicide sua sponte in a bench trial.
We affirm.
A masked and armed individual entered the Good Medicine Pharmacy in Columbia Falls, Montana, demanded a bottle of Percocet 10, and forced the pharmacy’s three employees to hide in the bathroom while he fled. One of the pharmacy’s employees identified Grant West as the robber. Officers arrested and charged West with robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs. A Flathead County jury found West guilty. West appeals, raising the following restated issues:
1. Did the District Court err in denying West’s Brady motion when the State waited three days to disclose that a witness was hearing impaired?
2. Could any rational juror have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the State established the essential elements of robbery?
3. Did the State commit prosecutorial misconduct when it introduced evidence about West’s alleged drug addiction and when it presented an overlay of security camera footage during closing argument?
4. Did West receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
5. Did the alleged cumulative errors deprive West of a fair trial?
We affirm.
Randy Joe Fish was found guilty of Felony Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Fish now appeals the Eleventh Judicial District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress the discovery of Methamphetamine in his pocket. We affirm.
We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Fish’s motion to suppress.
Thompson Chain of Lakes Stewardship Coalition, et al., (collectively, TCLSC) appeal the March 2025 order of the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court granting summary judgment to the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners (the County) and Intervenors Happy’s RV Park (Happy’s) that the County complied with §§ 76-3-603 and -608, MCA, the Thompson Chain of Lakes Neighborhood Plan, and the Lincoln County Growth Policy in granting conditional approval of Happy’s preliminary subdivision plat.
We address the following restated issues:
1. Did Happy’s environmental assessment satisfy the requirements of
§ 76-3-603(1)(a), MCA?
2. Did the County consider the “specific, documentable, and clearly defined impact” on “the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety” as required by § 76-3-608(3)(a), MCA?
3. Did the proposed subdivision comply with the Thompson Chain of Lakes Neighborhood Plan and County Growth Policy?
We affirm.
Sapphire Coalition (Sapphire) appeals the Twenty-First Judicial District Court’s January 28, 2025 Order granting Ravalli County’s (the County) motion to dismiss Sapphire’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Sapphire appeals the District Court’s order pertaining to Sapphire’s claims for declaratory relief but does not appeal the dismissal of its petition for writ of mandamus. We restate and address the following dispositive issue:
Whether the District Court erred by concluding the County’s subdivision regulations do not require the Planning Department to provide public notice prior to approving a subdivision exemption.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
On July 9, 2025, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order which dissolved the parties’ marriage, distributed their assets and debts between them, and set forth a parenting plan. Appellant, Laura Turek (Laura), appeals from the parenting plan set forth therein. We affirm and reverse, in part.
Appellant, Baylin Douglas Craythorn (Craythorn or Baylin), appeals from the District Court’s order granting the motion of Appellee, Aria Leigh Beitler-Williams (Beitler-Williams or Aria), to set aside a post-decree order granting attorney fees to Craythorn for having to respond to an earlier post-decree enforcement motion filed by Beitler-Williams. We affirm.
Mother appeals from the First Judicial District Court’s order terminating her parental rights to A.G., A.G., and H.G. We affirm.
Wesley Thomas Cooper (Cooper) appeals from the May 21, 2025 Order issued by the Nineteenth Judicial District of Montana, Lincoln County, which denied his writ of prohibition against the Montana Department of Justice (DOJ) and required him to register in Montana as a sex offender based on his conviction and the underlying charging documents for Sexual Assault in North Dakota.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred when it concluded that the proper avenue of relief from a duty to register as a sex offender in Montana was a petition for removal under § 46-23-506, MCA, and not a petition for a writ of prohibition.
2. Whether the District Court erred in relying on allegations not proved beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant when it concluded that Cooper had a duty to register as a sex offender.
3. Whether N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-07, “Sexual Assault,” is reasonably equivalent to a “Sexual Offense” as defined by § 46-23-502(9)(a), MCA (2015), for the purpose of imposing a duty to register as a sex offender.
We reverse and remand with instructions.
Alex Athy (Athy), on behalf of himself and as personal representative for the estate of his mother, Terry Athy (Terry), appeals the March 2025 order of the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dismissing his civil claims against Edgewood Kalispell Memory Care, et al., (Defendants) with prejudice. We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Did the District Court correctly construe Athy’s claims as medical malpractice claims subject to §§ 27-2-205(1) and 25-3-106, MCA, time limits and service of process requirements?
2. Did the District Court correctly dismiss Athy’s medical malpractice claims as time-barred by § 27-2-205(1), MCA?
This appeal arises from a long-running dissolution and post-decree enforcement matter in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. The District Court entered a final decree of dissolution in December 2022, incorporating a property settlement and parenting plan to which the parties stipulated in open court. The decree resolved property division, parenting, and child support obligations.
Scott Wayne Ellison appeals the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying his petition for postconviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing. Ellison’s filings asserted numerous theories for relief, including unfitness to proceed, inability to form the requisite mental states, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and disability-law violations. The District Court denied the petition and concluded no hearing was warranted because the files and record conclusively showed Ellison was not entitled to relief.
***
The Court also released the following order of interest:
Montana Quality Education Commission and Disability Rights Montana seek a writ of supervisory control directing the First Judicial District Court to vacate its Order Granting Stay of Judgement. The petition for writ of supervisory control is denied and dismissed.
Petitioner Transparent Election Initiative (TEI), seeks declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction and, pursuant to § 13-27-605(5), MCA, asks this Court to declare the Attorney General erred in determining Ballot Issue 4 (BI-4) is legally insufficient because it violates the separate vote requirement of Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution, and to direct the Attorney General to either approve TEI’s ballot statements or prepare and forward ballot statements to the Secretary of State within five days. TEI further asks this Court to strike the Attorney General’s fiscal statement and statement of material harm. At our invitation, the Attorney General has responded in opposition to TEI’s petition. With leave of Court, the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus briefs supporting the Attorney General’s determination.
Petitioner S.L., via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control over the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Cause No. DC-25-544, in which S.L. is the defendant in a criminal matter. S.L. alleges the court erred in denying her motion to substitute judge pursuant to § 3-1-804, MCA. Pursuant to S.L.’s request, we stayed the District Court matter pending the resolution of this petition. The State of Montana and Hon. John W. Larson, presiding Judge, have each responded in opposition to S.L.’s petition. With leave of Court, S.L. further filed a reply brief addressing arguments raised by the State in its response.