Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
Marriage of Bull
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-16
This case involves the dissolution of the marriage of Preston and Jacqueline Bull, who have three minor children, and disputes over the parenting plan and financial provisions in the decree. The District Court found that Preston had engaged in physical and emotional abuse toward Jacqueline and the children, along with heavy drinking, and adopted a parenting plan granting Jackie sole decision-making authority and limiting Preston to supervised visitation. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the parenting provisions, reasoning that they were supported by the abuse findings, the children's diagnoses, and the parenting evaluator's recommendations. However, the Court reversed and remanded the provision requiring equal sharing of extracurricular expenses, holding that such costs must be allocated proportionally to the parties' incomes under the child support guidelines, with appropriate findings on scope and limits.
family law
State v. B. Olson
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-02
In State v. Olson, the defendant appealed his conviction for incest involving his young daughter, arguing that the district court violated his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses by excluding, under Montana's rape shield statute, evidence of pornography found on the victim's brother's phone and alleged inappropriate touching between the siblings as alternative explanations for the child's age-inappropriate sexual knowledge. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that the proffered evidence remained speculative and lacked a sufficient factual foundation connecting it to the alleged abuse, and thus its exclusion under the rape shield law did not arbitrarily or unreasonably infringe on the defendant's rights. The rulings were consistent with precedent requiring a demonstrated nexus before admitting such evidence over the statute's protections.
criminal law
State v. C. Horn
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-04-21 · cited 1×
In State v. Horn, the defendant appealed his felony conviction for a fourth or subsequent DUI offense under Montana law after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, challenging the district court's imposition of a mandatory-minimum $5,000 fine under § 61-8-731(1)(a)(iii), MCA (2019), and certain fees. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the sentencing court must conduct an ability-to-pay analysis under Article II, Section 22, of the Montana Constitution and § 46-18-231(3), MCA (2019), before imposing the fine, and that the written judgment must conform to the oral pronouncement waiving the fees listed in the PSI. The core reasoning centered on statutory requirements for sentences to fall within legal parameters and the principle that oral pronouncements control over inconsistent written judgments.
criminal law
Kalafat v. State
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-04-21
In Kalafat v. State, the Montana Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review of a six-month driver's license suspension imposed after Erik Kalafat refused a preliminary breath test and blood test during a DUI investigation. The district court had granted the State's motion to dismiss on mootness grounds once the suspension period expired by operation of law and the license was reinstated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petition was not moot because the applicable statutes authorize a court to determine whether the officer had particularized suspicion to request testing and to remove an invalid suspension and related notations from the driving record, providing concrete relief beyond mere return of the license. The Court reasoned that the plain language of §§ 61-8-1016 and 61-8-1017, MCA, requires an available hearing on these issues and that denying review after reinstatement would undermine the statutory right to judicial review and raise procedural due process concerns.
criminal lawprocedure
Torgison v. Lincoln County
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-04-14
The case involved plaintiff Daniel Torgison appealing the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction against Lincoln County, its commissioners, and the Lincoln County Port Authority. Torgison alleged that the Port violated open meeting and public participation laws in entering agreements and selling property in the Kootenai Business Park to a private company. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. The court reasoned that Torgison had not satisfied the required elements for a preliminary injunction, including demonstrating irreparable harm to himself or the public, and that granting the relief would disrupt rather than preserve the status quo given the completed transactions.
procedurecivil rights
State v. C. Roope
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-03-10
In State v. Roope, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple felonies arising from alleged domestic violence against his former wife, including seven counts of partner or family member assault, strangulation, witness tampering, and bail jumping. On appeal, Roope argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by eliciting damaging testimony and that the district court committed plain error by failing to confirm on the record that he knowingly waived his right to testify. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in a memorandum opinion, holding that the ineffective assistance claims could not be resolved on direct appeal because they depended on facts outside the record and were better addressed in postconviction proceedings where counsel could explain the challenged decisions. The court also found no plain or obvious constitutional error regarding the right to testify that would require reversal.
criminal lawprocedure