The majority of cases before the Montana Supreme Court are decided based upon the written briefs submitted by the parties. However, the Court may decide that a case requires further discussion, in addition to what the parties have argued in their written briefs. In such cases, oral arguments are scheduled in open session before the Court. Approximately 15 cases a year are scheduled for oral argument.
Oral arguments are tightly structured and timed. The counsel for each party is allowed limited time to make an argument. The times typically range from 20 to 40 minutes and are set forth by the Court in the order setting oral argument.
While this format allows the counsel brief opportunity to further develop their arguments, it also gives the Court an opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys on points which the Court needs clarification.
A majority of oral arguments take place in the Montana Supreme Court Courtroom, located at 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. The Court does schedule a few arguments to be heard in different cities around the State. See the list of scheduled oral arguments below.
All oral arguments are open to the public.
Click here to see list of previous oral arguments
EQT CHAP LLC, Appellant, v. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, Appellee. Oral Argument is set for February 26, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
In 2021, Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization headquartered in Bozeman, published a report on fracking via its journalism project Environmental Health News. The report, investigated and written by a Pennsylvania reporter, described her investigation into the effect of fracking operations on western Pennsylvania communities. In 2022, a Pennsylvania resident filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection because he believed fracking operations had contaminated his water supply. EQT CHAP LLC is a party to that administrative proceeding as the successor-in-interest to the fracking leasor.
EQT obtained a subpoena in Pennsylvania to require EHS to provide it with documents related to the report. It lodged the subpoena in a Montana state district court to allow its enforcement in Montana. EHS moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that Montana’s Media Confidentiality Act protects the documents. EQT argued that the documents are not protected under Pennsylvania law. The District Court concluded that Montana law applies and it quashed the subpoena.
Soon afterward, the Montana Supreme Court issued Goguen v. NYP Holdings, Inc., in which the Court concluded that a Montana district court should have applied New York law in a defamation case where a Montana resident sued a New York publication. Based that case, EQT asked the District Court for relief from its ruling in this case. The District Court denied EQT’s motion.
The appeal raises a conflict of laws issue. EQT argues that Pennsylvania law applies to this case and thus the District Court erred in applying Montana law and quashing its subpoena because EHS is not protected by Montana’s Media Confidentiality Act.
MARK MULLEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WINTER SPORTS, INC., d/b/a WHITEFISH MOUNTAIN RESORT, and DOES 1-5, Individually, Defendants and Appellees. Oral Argument is set for Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. in the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A, on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Mark Mullee went skiing at Whitefish Mountain Resort in January 2019. After taking a chair lift, Mullee realized he had forgotten his phone and water in his car. Mullee skied downhill to retrieve his belongings. His route took him on a trail designed for inexperienced skiers. The trail included a tunnel that went under a road. After the tunnel, the trail curved to the right. To the left was a steep drop-off. The Resort typically had a snow fence installed at that location.
As Mullee emerged from the tunnel, his ski caught an edge and he veered left. He fell over the drop-off and suffered significant injuries. Mullee alleged the fence was not in place and he maintained it would have prevented his fall if it had been. The Resort claimed the fence was up but Mullee went through it because he was skiing too fast. The Resort also asserted that the fence was not designed to stop out-of-control skiers.
After Mullee sued for negligence, the District Court ruled in favor of the Resort. It concluded that, under the Montana Skier Responsibility Act, Mullee bore responsibility for his injuries as they were sustained as the result of the inherent risks and dangers of skiing. It determined that Mullee failed to prove the Resort had a duty to maintain the fencing. It also excluded Mullee’s expert witnesses and denied Mullee’s motion for summary judgment on the amount of damages. The court also denied Mullee’s motion to exclude the testimony of the Resort’s expert witness.
On appeal, Mullee argues that the District Court should have concluded that the Resort had a duty to maintain the fencing because the Resort knew the drop-off posed a heightened danger on a beginner-level trail. He also argues that the court erred in excluding his experts and consequently denying him summary judgment on the amount of damages. Mullee also argues that the court should have excluded the testimony of the Resort’s expert witness because the Resort provided inadequate disclosure and did not make the witness available for deposition.
RODNEY BRANDT, HEIDI BRANDT, MARSHALL FLADAGER, NEVA FLADAGER, ARRY LAUTARET, and RENA LAUTARET, Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Cross-Appellants, v. R&R MOUNTAIN ESCAPES, LLC, A MONTAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. Oral Argument is set for Wednesday, March 19, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
The Brandts, Fladagers, Lautarets, and R&R Mountain Escapes all own parcels of real estate in Whitefish that are subject to covenants and restrictions that limit the properties to “residential living.” The covenants and restrictions prohibit “any . . . commercial purpose whatsoever” and provide that structures on the property may not be used as an apartment or multi-family structure.
In June 2022, R&R applied to Flathead County for a permit to use its property as a short-term rental. The County approved the permit over the Brandts’ objection. R&R then marketed the property as a short-term rental.
The Brandts, Fladagers, and Lautarets sued R&R, arguing that short-term rentals violate the covenants and restrictions. The District Court granted summary judgment in their favor and enjoined R&R from allowing rentals for periods of less than 30 days. The court concluded that the prohibition against “any . . . commercial purpose whatsoever” included short-term rental use. However, the court declined to award attorney fees because it found the language in the covenants and restrictions to be ambiguous.
R&R appeals the injunction against short-term rental use of its property. The Brandts, Fladagers, and Lautarets appeal the denial of attorney fees.
IN THE MATTER OF AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN, An Attorney At Law. Oral Argument is set for Friday, March 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
APRIL
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW JOHN SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for Friday, April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in the Dennison Theatre, on the campus of the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, with an introduction to the argument beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Andrew John Smith and Larry Patterson got into an altercation that resulted in Smith suffering a gunshot wound and Patterson suffering eight stab wounds. Patterson died from his injuries. The State charged Smith with deliberate homicide.
Smith disclosed that he intended to argue justifiable use of force and that he had undergone a psychological evaluation. Smith was later found fit to proceed.
Prior to trial, the District Court concluded that the defenses of justifiable use of force and mental disease or defect are mutually exclusive. The court declined to offer a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide because either defense would result in acquittal for deliberate homicide if the jury believed the defense.
During trial, the court informed the parties it had received a question from the jury during the State’s case-in-chief. However, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and it directed the bailiff to inform the jury that the court could not answer the question. The court declined to reveal the question to the parties because it did not want to influence counsels’ questioning of witnesses. Prior to closing arguments, the court informed the parties that it had received another question. Again, the court determined it was an evidentiary question and directed the bailiff to inform the jury the court could not answer the question. Neither counsel objected.
On appeal, Smith argues the District Court erred in denying him a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of mitigated deliberate homicide. He further argues this Court should invoke plain error review to determine if his right to fundamentally fair proceedings was violated when the District Court responded to the jury questions without input of counsel.