The majority of cases before the Montana Supreme Court are decided based upon the written briefs submitted by the parties. However, the Court may decide that a case requires further discussion, in addition to what the parties have argued in their written briefs. In such cases, oral arguments are scheduled in open session before the Court. Approximately 15 cases a year are scheduled for oral argument.
Oral arguments are tightly structured and timed. The counsel for each party is allowed limited time to make an argument. The times typically range from 20 to 40 minutes and are set forth by the Court in the order setting oral argument.
While this format allows the counsel brief opportunity to further develop their arguments, it also gives the Court an opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys on points which the Court needs clarification.
A majority of oral arguments take place in the Montana Supreme Court Courtroom, located at the Joseph P. Mazurek Building, 215 N. Sanders, Helena, Montana. These may be viewed via live web stream: http://stream.vision.net/MT-JUD/. 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
IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF T.W., Respondent and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for April 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.
The State petitioned to involuntarily commit T.W. The court convened a jury trial at T.W.’s request. T.W. also requested, and was granted leave, to view the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted instead of appearing in person. The jury found T.W. suffered from a mental disorder but did not require commitment. The court then dismissed the petition.
After additional events occurred with T.W. over the weekend, the State filed a new petition for involuntary commitment the following Monday. T.W. again requested a jury trial. She also moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the State could not relitigate the same matter that a jury had just decided. The District Court denied the motion, concluding claim preclusion and issue preclusion did not apply.
At the second jury trial, the State objected to T.W. viewing the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted. The court ruled that T.W. could attend via videoconference but her audio and video must remain on. After jury selection, T.W. requested to waive further appearance; the court denied the request. The second jury found that T.W. suffered from a mental disorder and required involuntary commitment.
On appeal, T.W. argues the District Court erred by forcing her to appear via videoconference because she has the statutory right to waive appearance. T.W. also argues the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss because the State’s second petition was barred by claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion; at a minimum, T.W. argues, the State should have been limited to introducing evidence only of events that occurred after the first jury’s decision.