Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Boulder Monitor, which regularly attended meetings of the full Jefferson County High School Board, sued Jefferson High School District No. 1, claiming that a meeting of the Board’s budget subcommittee violated statutory open meeting and public participation requirements because there was a quorum of the Board present at the subcommittee meeting, the meeting discussed personnel matters in addition to the 2012-2013 budget, that all Board members present participated in the discussion, and that the public notice of the subcommittee meeting was inadequate. The district court granted summary judgment to the Monitor, concluding that the Board violated Montana law in the manner in which the budget subcommittee meeting was conducted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment in this case was improper because contested issues of fact existed that may not be resolved on summary judgment. Remanded. View "Boulder Monitor v. Jefferson High Sch. Dist. No. 1" on Justia Law

In 2004, Petitioner was hired as a production supervisor for Holcim Inc.’s cement manufacturing plant. In 2008, Petitioner was diagnosed with angina. After Petitioner left Holcim, Petitioner filed a claim under the Montana Human Rights Acts for discrimination. The Montana Department of Labor and Industry dismissed Petitioner’s complaint, concluding that Holcim did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of disability. The Montana Human Rights Commission upheld the dismissal, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the hearing officer’s determination that Petitioner did not prove that he belonged to a protected class, as Petitioner failed to establish that he was disabled within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. View "Estate of Welch v. Holcim, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff agreed to an increase in his monthly support obligation. The increase was applied retroactively to the date the child’s mother requested the increase, which created an arrearage in Plaintiff’s account. Although Plaintiff arranged to pay off the arrearage, the State of Montana, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) reported the arrearage to national consumer credit reporting agencies. Prospective employers subsequently rejected Plaintiff as an otherwise qualified candidate for being delinquent in his child support payments. Plaintiff filed suit against CSED for its erroneous report to the credit agencies. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s arrearage constituted a delinquency or overdue child support, but the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint must be upheld because Plaintiff did not avail himself of the statutory and administrative processes for challenging this action by CSED; and (2) the resulting injustice in this case required remand with directions that the credit reporting agencies that reported Plaintiff’s arrearage remove from their data base any reference to Plaintiff having been in arrears or delinquent in the payment of his child support obligations. View "Kenck v. State, Child Support Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

NorthWestern Energy (NWE) disconnected electric service to Plaintiff's residence based on an outstanding balance on Plaintiff's utility bill. Plaintiff filed an action alleging property damage due to NWE's negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the termination of his electric service caused his furnace to fail, which led to water pipes freezing and bursting. NWE filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the Public Service Commission (PSC). The district court granted NWE's motion and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the PSC had no authority to adjudicate Plaintiff's damage claim, and a negligence action seeking damages could be maintained against the power company in district court. View "Schuster v. NorthWestern Energy Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Delaware LLC operating in Montana, purchased a cable television network infrastructure in Montana in 2003. In 2010, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in response to certain actions taken by the State of Montana Department of Revenue. Specifically, Plaintiff sought (1) to prevent the Department from issuing revised assessments of Plaintiff for tax years 2007 through 2009 and to prevent the Department from issuing any other revised assessments, and (2) a declaration that the Department had illegally assessed all of Plaintiff's property as class thirteen property. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on the Department's ability to issue retroactive assessments and directed the Department to refund with interest the payments that Plaintiff had made under protest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding (1) Plaintiff owned exclusively class eight property because, under Montana law, Plaintiff was subject to assessment under class thirteen; and (2) the Department lacked authority to issue revised assessments for Plaintiff's property for tax years 2007 through 2009 where the Department's discovery and subsequent reclassification arose from the audit's revelation of inaccuracies in Plaintiff's self-classification. View "Bresnan Commc'ns, LLC v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Lincoln County Commissioners created the Bull Lake Rural Fire District and appointed a Board of Trustees to govern the District. The District and County later disputed the permissible scope of the District's services and the circumstances under which the District could be dispatched. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, holding (1) the County delegated to the District only the authority to provide limited firefighting services, and only the County could authorize the District to expand the scope of its services; and (2) the District was only entitled to receive notice of emergencies in its geographical area, and Troy Dispatch had the discretion whether to dispatch the District to respond to any particular emergency. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the District's Trustees and the fire chief determined the scope of the District's services under Montana law, and the District was not required to seek prior approval of the County before providing any of those emergency services; and (2) the District was entitled to be notified of a request for service in its geographical area, and Troy Dispatch had the responsibility to determine how to provide the notification and which emergency service provider to dispatch in each instance. View "Bull Lake Fire Dist. v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

Appellant, a vocational agricultural teacher at a high school, served as faculty advisor for the school's chapter of the National FFA Organization. Appellant obtained a loan on behalf of the school FFA and opened a checking account into which she deposited the loan proceeds. Because Appellant did not deposit the funds in an account maintained by the school district, Appellant violated the school district financial policy and was suspended. Appellant then made out a check to herself to purportedly reimburse herself for expenses incurred in setting up a hay cutting business. The Board of Trustees subsequently terminated Appellant's employment. The Montana Department of Labor and Industry determined that Appellant was eligible to receive benefits, but a hearing officer concluded that Appellant had been discharged for misconduct and was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The Board of Labor Appeals affirmed the determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's actions constituted misconduct, and she was therefore ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. View "Roberts v. State Bd. of Labor Appeals" on Justia Law

In this water right adjudication, the Water Master concluded that the water right of Claimants, property owners, had been abandoned. Claimants filed an objection to the Water Master's report, arguing, among other things, that the Water Master's application of 79 Ranch v. Pitsch to their existing right was an impermissible retroactive application of the law. The Water Court ruled (1) 79 Ranch applied to Claimants' case; but (2) the Water Master erred in finding that Claimants had failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of intent to abandon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Water Court (1) correctly applied 79 Ranch analysis; and (2) correctly concluded that Claimants submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of abandonment. View "Heavirland v. State" on Justia Law

After leaving her job as a bus driver, Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. The Department determined that Plaintiff was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits. The Boar of Labor Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for review in the district court. The district court denied Plaintiff's petition for failure to comply with Rule 2 of the Montana Uniform District Court Rules because Plaintiff had not filed a supporting brief or stated issues of law for review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it denied Plaintiff's petition for failure to include a supplemental brief because the provisions of Rule 2 do not apply to a petition for judicial review. View "Jacky v. Avitus Group" on Justia Law

Mont. Code Ann. 15-6-218 grants tax exemption to intangible personal property and defines intangible personal property. The statute lists "goodwill" as the one non-exhaustive example of intangible property that lacks physical existence. The Department of Revenue implements the statute with Mont. Admin. R. 42.22.110. In 2010, the Department amended its definitions of intangible personal property and goodwill. The district court found that the new definitions of intangibles and goodwill imposed additional and contradictory requirements on state law and that the valuation manuals adopted by the Department were invalid to the extent they supported the Department's new rules. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded (1) the Department's regulation defining goodwill was invalid because it conflicted with section 15-6-218(2)(b); (2) the Department's regulation defining intangible personal property was invalid because it conflicted with section 15-6-218(2)(a); and (3) the valuation manuals adopted by the Department were invalid to the extent they supported its new rules. View "Gold Creek Cellular of Mont. Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Revenue " on Justia Law