| State v. Gomez |
| Citation: 2020 MT 73 Opinion Date: March 31, 2020 Judge: Gustafson Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of one count of partner or family member assault and one count of deliberate homicide, holding that the court erred in admitting some of the deceased victim's out-of-court statements, but the error was harmless. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to sever the counts; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of the victim's drug use and denied Defendant's motion for a new trial; (3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting the victim's out-of-court statements as evidence of her state of mind, but the error was harmless; and (4) there were no grounds to apply the doctrine of cumulative error in this case. |
| |
| In re Mental Health of W.K. |
| Citation: 2020 MT 71 Opinion Date: March 31, 2020 Judge: Beth Baker Areas of Law: Health Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court involuntarily committing Appellant to the Montana State Hospital (MSH) for a period not to exceed ninety days, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that Appellant was substantially unable to provide for her own basic needs. After a hearing, the district court issued its findings that Appellant suffered from a serious mental illness requiring commitment because she represented a danger to herself and because she was unable to care for her own basic needs. The court concluded that commitment to MSH was the least restrictive alternative necessary to protect Appellant and to effectively treat her mental disorder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient facts supported the district court's finding that Appellant required commitment to MSH. |
| |
| Brenden v. City of Billings |
| Citation: 2020 MT 72 Opinion Date: March 31, 2020 Judge: Sandefur Areas of Law: Personal Injury |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the City of Billing on Appellant's claims that the City was vicariously liable for the tortious acts of former City employee Michael Glancy, holding that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Glancy was not acting within the scope of his employment. After Appellant brought his lawsuit the City filed a motion for summary judgment on the asserted ground that Glancy engaged in the alleged tortious conduct outside the scope of his employment. The district court granted summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to whether Glancy's conduct were incidental to implicitly authorized conduct and thus within the scope of his employment. |
| |
| Howlett v. Chiropractic Center, P.C. |
| Citation: 2020 MT 74 Opinion Date: March 31, 2020 Judge: Mike McGrath Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Defendant, a chiropractor, was not negligent in his care of Plaintiff, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of the rulings challenged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Defendant herniated her cervical disc, did not treat her consistent with the standard of care required by a chiropractor in Montana, and was negligent in his examination and treatment of her. After denying both parties' motions for partial summary judgment a trial was held. The jury returned a special verdict finding Defendant was not negligent in his care of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that there was disputed issues of material fact as to the chiropractic standard of care and whether Defendant departed from that standard of care; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's habits and routine practices when treating patients; (3) the district court did not err in admitting Defendant's perpetuated expert testimony; and (4) any error in admitting alternative cause evidence or allowing Plaintiff to be impeached with her attorney's application to the Montana Chiropractic Legal Panel was harmless. |
| |
