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.