Russell Evans Smith

This case involved a claim by plaintiff Doug Dugger for relocation assistance benefits under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act after he vacated his rented business premises following a notice from his landlord, which was prompted by the City of Missoula's development project using federal block grant funds on nearby property. The court reviewed the Montana Department of Commerce's denial of benefits, along with claims of equal protection violations and an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. The court affirmed the agency's denial, reasoning that Dugger was not a displaced person under the Act because the city did not acquire his leased property and he moved due to the landlord's independent decision to terminate the tenancy. It also dismissed the other claims, finding no taking occurred and no equal protection violation from the city's compensation offers, which Dugger had refused.

federal powerpropertyprocedurecivil rights

The case was a debt collection action in which Direct Mail Specialist, Inc. sought to recover $10,997.85 for services provided to Peaceful Bay Resort and Club from defendants who claimed limited-partner status. The court held that the defendants other than Murr L. Brown were liable as general partners because the certificate of limited partnership contained multiple defects, was not recorded with the Secretary of State, and did not provide actual or constructive notice to the plaintiff that it was dealing with a limited partnership. The court further held that the 15% interest rate in the underlying oral agreement was not usurious because Utah law governed the contract as the place of performance. The court therefore denied the defendants' summary-judgment motion and entered judgment against all defendants jointly and severally.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a long-term employee of Group W Cable who was demoted without notice and reassigned, leading her to sue for wrongful demotion under Montana tort law, age discrimination under the state Human Rights Act, and interference with future pension benefits. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on all three counts. It reasoned that Montana does not recognize a tort claim for wrongful demotion beyond existing termination precedents, the age discrimination filing was untimely and lacked the required right-to-sue letter from the Human Rights Commission, and the pension claim was speculative absent evidence of actual harm or discrimination. The court allowed amendment of the complaint to assert a federal age discrimination claim under 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This diversity jurisdiction case involved the First National Bank of Saint Paul seeking to collect on two promissory notes totaling $4,900,000 issued to Intermountain Bancorporation and James Edmiston, which were governed by Minnesota law and contained demand or acceleration provisions upon default or insecurity. The borrowers admitted nonpayment but raised affirmative defenses and counterclaims alleging fraud, breach of oral commitments for long-term financing and forbearance during hard times, and improper acceleration. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on the notes, dismissing the contract-based defenses and counterclaims because no written agreements supported the alleged promises and a breach of contract does not independently support tort liability under Minnesota precedent. The fraud claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead the circumstances with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), with leave to amend by a set deadline.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This antitrust case involved nurse anesthetist T.E. Oltz, who had a contract to provide services at St. Peter's Community Hospital until the hospital terminated it in 1980 upon granting an exclusive contract to a group of anesthesiologists. Oltz sued the hospital and doctors, alleging a conspiracy to exclude him as a competitor; the jury found the hospital liable and awarded damages for lost income, but the hospital moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding direct evidence of a conspiracy among the doctors that led the hospital to grant the exclusive contract. However, it granted a new trial on damages only, reasoning that the jury should have considered the joint income and earning potential of Oltz and his wife (also a nurse anesthetist) as joint venturers when calculating lost future income.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, plaintiffs Ronald and Jolene Jacobson sued Western Montana Production Credit Association (PCA) and several individuals for losses from a failed commodities hedging program financed by a PCA loan, alleging claims including RICO violations, fraud, negligence, and bad faith. The court denied PCA's motion to dismiss, ruling that the association's receivership under federal farm credit laws did not abate pending lawsuits, as neither the statute nor the liquidation plan provided for such abatement and normal dispute resolution channels remained available. It granted summary judgment to defendants on multiple counts (including fraud and negligence) because the claims were barred by Montana's statutes of limitations, as plaintiffs had knowledge of their losses years earlier. The court also dismissed the bad faith/punitive damages count due to the dismissal of underlying claims and dismissed the third-party complaint against Pioneer Commodities and Dennis Richardson for indemnity or contribution on RICO claims, following precedent that no such right exists in RICO actions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a subcontractor who was not paid for work on a U.S. Forest Service contract and sought to recover from proceeds of an irrevocable letter of credit that the government had accepted from a bank in place of a required Miller Act payment bond. The court decided that it had jurisdiction under the Miller Act to entertain the suit and that the subcontractor could recover. The core reasoning was that the statute's reference to suits on bonds should be interpreted in light of the Act's purpose to protect subcontractors on government contracts, that the letter of credit was accepted as an equivalent security in lieu of the bond, and that the parties intended the obligations to be coextensive with those under a bond.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the denial of supplemental Social Security income benefits to the plaintiff, based on the determination that she was considered married to a man with resources exceeding the statutory limit. The district court affirmed the Appeals Council's decision to reopen and reverse an administrative law judge's award of benefits, finding that the plaintiff and her partner held themselves out as husband and wife under the applicable Social Security regulations. The court reasoned that the regulations permitted reopening for good cause, including clear error in the initial factual findings, and that substantial evidence supported the original determination that the couple presented themselves as married, making the second AU's contrary finding erroneous under principles of res judicata for past facts.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this case, employees Ray Nunnally and Russell Kerr sued their employer MMR, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 768, and union officials, alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement and breach of the duty of fair representation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. Nunnally's claims were dismissed as time-barred under a six-month statute of limitations borrowed from federal or state law. Kerr's claims lacked supporting evidence regarding the layoff and union testing procedures.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned an attorney's petition for fees after representing a client who successfully challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' termination of Social Security disability benefits. The attorney requested both the statutory maximum of 25% of past-due benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) and additional fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The court denied relief under the EAJA, holding that the 25% cap is the exclusive limit on fees payable from the claimant's recovery and that the EAJA right belongs to the prevailing party rather than the attorney. The court further reasoned that the Secretary's position was substantially justified given the evidence supporting the administrative decision. It awarded the 25% fee amount of $3,169.35 as agreed by the Secretary.

healthcareprocedure

In this case, a former inmate of the Missoula County Jail sued the county sheriff, seeking injunctive relief and damages for the alleged failure to provide law office facilities, including a library, typewriters, and notary services, which the plaintiff claimed denied him meaningful access to the courts under federal law. The court dismissed the claim on the merits after a trial, finding that the plaintiff had not shown any deprivation of court access or any resulting damages. The reasoning centered on the county's provision of attorneys for criminal defense and habeas corpus matters, along with writing materials and notary services; the plaintiff's transfer to a state prison with a library; the absence of any other civil claims; and statistical evidence showing that the vast majority of jail detainees were held for short periods, making a standby library unnecessary to ensure access in most circumstances.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved independent contractors performing logging work for Burlington Northern Railroad who alleged that the railroad conspired to reduce or deny them contracts due to their efforts to organize for negotiations, their employment of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their choice of subcontractors, seeking remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The court dismissed the second through fifth causes of action with prejudice and the first with leave to amend, ruling that Section 1985(3) is a purely remedial statute that creates no rights and applies only to violations of federal rights, not state-created entitlements or private business arrangements. The decision relied on the Supreme Court’s Novotny holding that the statute does not protect against private discrimination or business organization claims absent an underlying federal right, distinguishing it from the Ninth Circuit’s Reichardt approach, and noted that any potential state tort claim for interference with contracts could proceed separately under diversity jurisdiction if properly pled.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatorylabor & employmentreligious liberty

In Brothers v. Rosauer's Supermarkets, Inc., a shopper sued a supermarket after being arrested for shoplifting by its security officer, claiming false arrest and related torts following the dismissal of criminal charges against him. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The charges had been dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain that included a covenant not to sue the security officer, county, and city, but reserved rights against the supermarket. The court reasoned that this arrangement interfered with the ordinary processes of the criminal law by basing the dismissal on considerations extraneous to the merits of the case, thereby depriving the supermarket of protections such as a judicial determination of probable cause, and that such conduct violated public policy, barring the plaintiff from pursuing the action.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Fisher v. United States, parents brought a Federal Tort Claims Act wrongful death action after their minor daughter was killed by a falling snowplow blade while playing during a lunch break on a wildlife refuge, prior to a scheduled guided tour arranged as part of a school field trip. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment. Although plaintiffs argued that the trip's educational purpose meant the child was an invitee under Montana law and that the recreational use statute did not apply, the court held the statute applicable because the activities could reasonably be regarded as recreational (such as picnicking), regardless of any additional educational intent, and no willful or wanton misconduct was alleged.

torts & liability

The case involved a long-term employee who was promoted to a salaried carpenter-foreman position outside the union bargaining unit and was later discharged for unauthorized possession of company property; after his discharge, he was denied rehire as a carpenter, prompting him to sue for damages on theories of wrongful termination and violation of the collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both counts. On the first count, the court held that under Montana law the employment was at will and terminable without cause, as the discharge for theft did not implicate public policy. On the second count, the court reasoned that the collective bargaining agreement's grievance and arbitration procedures governed the dispute over the plaintiff's bargaining-unit status and seniority, that the plaintiff had failed to pursue arbitration after the company declined the grievance, and that by filing suit instead he could not enforce the agreement's just-cause or seniority provisions in court.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by a state game warden to Montana's mandatory retirement law requiring retirement at age 60, brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court reconsidered its prior approach and held that it could not reach the merits of the ADEA claim because Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the working conditions of state employees performing purely governmental functions. Citing National League of Cities v. Usery and following EEOC v. Wyoming, the court concluded that the 1974 amendments extending the ADEA to states were invalid as applied here, rejecting contrary pre-Pennhurst precedent from the Fourth Circuit. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants, denying the plaintiff all relief.

labor & employmentfederal powercivil rights

The case concerned whether Montana's statutory scheme for addressing age discrimination in employment provided an exclusive administrative remedy through the Human Rights Commission under MCA §§ 49-2-501 to 507, or whether victims could also pursue private lawsuits in court. The court decided that the administrative remedy is exclusive and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. It reasoned that the legislature created new rights against discrimination while simultaneously prescribing a specific Commission process involving investigation, conciliation, and enforcement aimed at systemic compliance, without authorizing private actions. This conclusion followed the general rule that when a statute creates a right and prescribes a remedy, the statutory remedy is exclusive, as confirmed by the Act's language and structure referencing administrative procedures and judicial review rather than trials.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, petitioner Spurlock challenged his 1972 state convictions for armed robbery, arguing that a jury instruction on intent—stating that the law presumes a person intends the ordinary consequences of voluntary acts, but noting it was disputable—was unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana because it shifted the burden of proof on the element of intent. The court denied the petition, holding that the instruction was not mandatory and that, when read together with the full set of instructions emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the state's burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the requirement that circumstantial evidence exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, no burden was shifted to the defendant. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that any lack of preparation resulted from the petitioner's own choices regarding representation and timing rather than any constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a motorcyclist injured by the defendant's goats on a U.S. highway, who sued under Montana statutes making it unlawful for owners to willfully allow swine, sheep, or goats to run at large and imposing misdemeanor fines plus civil liability for resulting damages, as well as under a claim of ordinary negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statutes, originally from 1895 and amended in 1945, were intended only to protect landowners' property rather than motorists. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action. It reasoned from the historical evolution of Montana's open range laws that the 1945 amendment reflected a broader modernization of livestock containment rules, extending protection to all persons injured by violations without limiting the class of beneficiaries.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this civil rights action, inmate Gary Quigg sought damages from sheriff’s deputies and a parole officer who searched his university dormitory room without a warrant after an anonymous tip about drugs, seized apparent drugs, and caused his educational furlough to be revoked; a state court later suppressed the evidence, leading to reinstatement of the furlough. The court denied Quigg’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the claim frivolous. The decision rested on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a parolee (equated here to a furloughed inmate) has reduced privacy expectations and may be searched by a parole officer, assisted by deputies, when the officer reasonably believes the search is needed for parole supervision purposes, even without probable cause; the search here met that standard and was conducted for parole rather than general law-enforcement reasons. Although a state decision had suppressed the evidence, it did not control the federal constitutional question in this court.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure