Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
State v. T. Peterson
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-23
Trisha Lynn Peterson pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and theft by accountability after she and a co-defendant damaged a dog-wash machine at a car wash using a sledgehammer and prybar. As part of her plea, she agreed to pay restitution jointly and severally for the damage, but she contested the district court's award of the full replacement cost of a new machine ($21,050 or similar) rather than repair costs or used market value. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order, holding that the victim's testimony about failed repair attempts, manufacturer advice, and the machine's ongoing inoperability provided substantial evidence supporting replacement cost under the restitution statutes, and that the district court properly assessed the victim's credibility. The court rejected claims that the award exceeded legal limits or lacked evidentiary support, while noting Peterson's ability to pay was considered at sentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. E. Adams
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-23
In State v. Adams, the State charged Edmund Alvin Adams with multiple counts of incest and sexual intercourse without consent after his adopted daughter R.A. disclosed ongoing sexual abuse beginning when she was four years old. During trial, the district court admitted testimony from A.P., another adopted daughter from Adams's prior marriage, who described substantially similar abuse years earlier; Adams objected that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial under M. R. Evid. 403. A Ravalli County jury convicted Adams on all counts. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony and that trial counsel was not ineffective.
criminal law
Okragly v. Keitel
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-09
The case involved unmarried parents Sebastian Keitel and Avanlee Okragly who had stipulated to a final parenting plan for their young child that included a clause awarding attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in future enforcement litigation. Keitel moved to hold Okragly in contempt for alleged violations regarding parenting time, medical information, therapy, and changing the child's birth certificate, but the district court denied the motion after finding the claims unsubstantiated and awarded Okragly $14,880 in fees and costs. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee amount was reasonable based on the attorney's testimony addressing the Plath factors, particularly given Keitel's failure to appear or present contrary evidence at the hearing.
family law
Bradley v. Yellowstone Trails Ranch
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-26
In Bradley v. Yellowstone Trails Ranch Owners’ Association, John and Lisa Bradley sued the subdivision’s owners’ association seeking a declaratory judgment to remove an agricultural designation from their lot so it could be developed for residential use. After the association acknowledged service but failed to file a timely answer, the district court entered default judgment for the Bradleys; the association then moved to set it aside, and the court granted that motion. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the association’s acknowledgment of service constituted an appearance that triggered the seven-day notice requirement of Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) before default judgment could be entered. Because that notice was not provided, the default judgment was premature and voidable, and other factors such as the association’s prompt post-judgment response and the policy favoring resolution on the merits supported setting it aside.
propertyprocedure
BMK Enterprises v. Bailey
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-12
BMK Enterprises sued Bailey Enterprises and related parties for breach of contract after Bailey sold adjacent commercial property to a third party without first offering it to BMK under a right-of-first-refusal clause in their 2018 Buy-Sell Agreement for nearby storage-unit property. The district court held the clause unenforceable as a matter of law because it ambiguously described the property and granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the trial court should have examined extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent to resolve the ambiguity before declaring the provision void. The court remanded for that factual inquiry, noting that contract interpretation begins with the written language but requires extrinsic evidence when the text is unclear.
propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Victory Insurance Co. v. State Auditor
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-12
The case involved the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance fining Victory Insurance Company $75,000 for three violations of the Montana Insurance Code related to its role as a managing general agent, including failing to provide records in a usable CSV format as demanded. The district court upheld the agency's summary judgment and penalty, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that Victory violated the requirement to provide access to records in usable form under § 33-2-1602(4), MCA, based on undisputed facts, and that the maximum fine was not arbitrary or capricious given evidence of willful obstruction and misrepresentation.
business & regulatoryprocedure