Latest 2 Cases: In re C.B. (Family Law), In re Estate of Cooney (Family Law)

Taking Stock: A Review of Justice Stevens’s Last Book and an Appreciation of His Extraordinary Service on the Supreme Court

RODGER CITRON

Rodger D. Citron, the Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and a Professor of Law at Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, comments on the late Justice John Paul Stevens’s last book, The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years. Citron laments that, in his view, the memoir is too long yet does not say enough, but he lauds the justice for his outstanding service on the Supreme Court.

Read More

In re C.B.

Citation: 2019 MT 294

Opinion Date: December 24, 2019

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to Child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights to Child. Specifically, the Court held (1) Mother was afforded fundamentally fair procedures comporting with her constitutional due process rights when the district court terminated her parental rights; and (2) while the district court determined that Child was "abused or neglected" prior to terminating Mother's parental rights there was substantial and credible evidence in the record to support the district court's finding that Mother's circumstances remained unchanged following her prior terminations.

In re Estate of Cooney

Citation: 2019 MT 293

Opinion Date: December 24, 2019

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Daughters' motion to invalidate parts of Father's will in probate proceedings, holding that Daughters' claim was not properly brought in the probate proceedings. When Father died his property was devised by will to Son. In the probate proceedings, Daughters moved to invalidate parts of the will, claiming that the will contravened a prior marital property settlement agreement between Father and his ex-wife. The district court denied the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the separation agreement while sitting in probate.