Latest 4 Cases: Ramon v. Short (Criminal Law), In re A.B. (Family Law), Maryland Casualty Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court (Labor & Employment Law)

Is Retribution Worth the Cost?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the four purported goals of the criminal justice system—deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation—and argues that retribution may preclude rehabilitation. Colb considers whether restorative justice—wherein a victim has a conversation with the offender and talks about what he did to her and why it was wrong—might better serve the rehabilitative purpose than long prison sentences do.

Read More

The Other Epidemic

KATHRYN ROBB

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, comments on a public-health crisis that is getting relatively less attention right now: the scourge of child sex abuse. To address this crisis, Robb calls for greater public awareness, stronger laws protecting children, and legislative action

Read More

Ramon v. Short

Citation: 2020 MT 69

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court denying Appellant's application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling that holding individuals pursuant to a federal civil immigration detainer request is an arrest under Montana law and that a detainer request is not an arrest warrant and does not compel the re-arrest of a person otherwise entitled to release. Plaintiff was arrested and booked into county jail. When Plaintiff attempted to post his bond, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) sent the jail a civil immigration detainer request under the Immigration and Nationality Act and informed the bond company that the sheriff would continue to detain Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff's bondsman declined to post his bond, and Plaintiff was not released. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the sheriff violated Montana law in honoring the Border Patrol's request. The district court ruled against Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Plaintiff's continued detention for a new purpose when he was otherwise entitled to release was an arrest under Montana law, and the sheriff lacked state arrest authority to detain Plaintiff on the basis of his potential removal under federal immigration law.

In re A.B.

Citation: 2020 MT 64

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, holding that the district court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights. In terminating Mother's parental rights, the district court concluded that Mother's conduct was unlikely to change within a reasonable time and found that termination of Mother's parental rights, rather than a guardianship, was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it determine that Mother's condition or conduct rendering her unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination was in the child's best interests and that Mother did not overcome the presumption in favor of termination.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court

Citation: 2020 MT 70

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Sandefur

Areas of Law: Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court allowed hundreds of former employees of W.R. Grace & Company's Zonolite Division in Libby (Grace) to continue their asbestos-related personal injury claims against Maryland Casualty Company (MCC), Grace's former workers' compensation insurance provider, holding that MCC owed Grace workers a direct common law duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts 324A(b)-(c) to use reasonable care under the circumstances to warn them of the known risk of exposure to airborne asbestos in certain Grace workplaces. The Supreme Court assumed supervisory control over proceedings pending before the Montana Asbestos Claims Court. Here the Court addressed on extraordinary review MCC's assertion that the district court erred in concluding that MCC owed a duty of care to warn third-party employees of Grace of a known risk of airborne asbestos exposure in or about Grace facilities in and about Libby, Montana between 1963 and 1970. The Supreme Court held that, based on MCC's affirmative assumption of employee-specific medical monitoring and Grace's reliance on MCC to perform that function, MCC owed Grace workers a legal duty to use reasonable care to warn them of the risk of airborne asbestos.

Putnam v. Central Montana Medical Center

Citation: 2020 MT 65

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Central Montana Medical Center (CCMC) and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging wrongful termination and violation of Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-904(1)(b) and (c) of the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act, holding that the district court did not err. In granting summary judgment in favor of CCMC and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the district court determined that CMMC terminated Plaintiff's employment for good cause and that CMMC did not violate its express written policies when it terminated Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and CMMC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.