Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-09
The case involved a challenge by the Transparent Election Initiative and Jeff Mangan to the Montana Attorney General's revised ballot statement for constitutional initiative CI-135, which would amend the state constitution to limit the powers of artificial persons such as corporations, nonprofits, and unions by prohibiting them from spending money to influence elections and imposing penalties like revocation of legal status for violations. The petitioners argued that the Attorney General's statement violated Montana law by being inaccurate, argumentative, or prejudicial, and they sought court approval of their own version instead. The Supreme Court held that the Attorney General had authority to revise the statement after determining the original proposal was noncompliant, but it found one sentence in his version improper and ordered it removed. The court then certified the amended statement to the Secretary of State, reasoning that the revised language otherwise provided a true and impartial explanation as required by statute while respecting the Attorney General's discretion in drafting.
electionsfree speechbusiness & regulatory
Marriage of Ramsey
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-06-02
This case concerns a post-dissolution child custody dispute in which Clark Ryan Ramsey appealed the Montana District Court's refusal to relinquish jurisdiction over parenting plan matters to a Virginia court under the UCCJEA. After the Montana court had entered a final parenting plan granting primary custody to Whitney Lynn Soderholm in Virginia, Ramsey filed a motion in Montana to surrender jurisdiction, claiming the court no longer had authority or that Montana was an inconvenient forum; he had also initiated related proceedings in Virginia alleging abuse. The District Court denied the motion, concluding it retained jurisdiction because Ramsey resided in Montana and the forum was not inconvenient given its familiarity with the case. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, determining that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction as no pending Virginia proceeding required relinquishment and the relevant statutory factors supported Montana's continued role.
family lawprocedure
State v. M. Smith
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-19
The case involved Michael Todd Smith, who was convicted in Montana district court of five counts of sexual abuse of children based on possession of child pornography found on laptops seized from his home during a 2015 search. Smith appealed the convictions, arguing primarily that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by a multi-year pre-arrest delay, along with challenges to the denial of a motion to compel and the admission of certain trial exhibits. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings and the convictions in full, concluding after applying the four-factor balancing test from State v. Ariegwe that the delay did not violate Smith's speedy trial rights, that the district court did not abuse its discretion on the evidentiary and discovery issues, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict. A partial dissent would have reversed on speedy trial grounds due to the length of the delay and unrebutted prejudice.
criminal lawprocedure
MacLaurin v. Fischer Law, PLLC.
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-19
The case involved James “Buck” MacLaurin Jr. suing Fischer Law for legal malpractice, alleging that advice in 2020 to convey his property interest to a trust caused him to lose his right of survivorship in jointly owned property after Mary MacLaurin's death. The district court dismissed the claim, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that a 1987 life estate deed to Mary had already severed the joint tenancy by destroying the necessary unities of ownership, meaning the 2020 conveyance did not cause the loss of survivorship rights. Therefore, Buck failed to plead a viable malpractice claim as the lawyer's actions were not the cause of any damage.
propertytorts & liability
State v. D. Steffens
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-05
In State v. Steffens, the defendant was convicted of felony sexual assault for subjecting his young niece to sexual contact on multiple occasions between 2009 and 2013 when she was under fourteen years old. Steffens appealed, seeking plain error review of jury instructions on mental state, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to those instructions, and arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove sexual contact or the requisite intent. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the instructions were not plainly erroneous, that counsel's performance did not prejudice the outcome, and that the victim's testimony describing repeated touching of private areas during a secretive game was sufficient for a jury to infer the defendant's intent to gratify sexual desire. The court emphasized that credibility determinations and inferences from conduct are within the jury's province and that settled precedent supported the sufficiency of the evidence.
criminal law
Heaven v. Weber
Montana Supreme Court · 2026-05-05
In Heaven v. Weber, Matthew Heaven appealed a district court order denying his motions to disqualify Judge Molly Owen, declaring him a vexatious litigant, and enjoining him from filing further pleadings without leave of court in an underlying civil action against the Webers for breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the disqualification motions, concluding that the judge correctly applied the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct and that no objective basis for bias existed. It also determined that the district court had transmitted an adequate record on appeal. However, the court reversed the vexatious litigant designation and pre-filing order, holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide Heaven notice and an opportunity to be heard and by not making sufficient findings under the four-factor test for such restrictions, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
procedurecivil rights