Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The district court granted a permanent injunction against the enforcement of certain provisions of the 2011 Montana Marijuana Act. The State appealed the grant of the injunction, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to enjoin other provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in determining that the Act’s provision requiring the Department of Public Health and Human Services to notify the Board of Medical Examiners of any physician who certifies twenty-five or more patients in a year for medical marijuana fails rational review; (2) did not err in determining that the Act’s commercial prohibitions fail rational basis review; (3) erred in applying strict scrutiny review to the Act’s provision prohibiting advertising by providers of medical marijuana; (4) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision prohibiting probationers from becoming registered cardholders for medical marijuana use withstands a facial challenge under rational basis scrutiny; and (5) did not err in determining that the Act’s provision allowing warrantless inspections of medical marijuana providers’ businesses comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches. View "Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court entered an order for Appellant's involuntary commitment, not to exceed ninety days, initially to Montana State Hospital. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court’s verbal and written order lacked sufficient factual detail to satisfy statutory requirements for an order of commitment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s findings were sufficient to satisfy Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127(8)(a); and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that, as a result of his mental disorder, Appellant required an order of involuntary commitment. View "In re B.D." on Justia Law

While institutionalized at the Montana State Hospital, Defendant assaulted and injured a nurse. Defendant was charged with felony aggravated assault and was transferred to Montana State Prison, where he remained until the district court ordered that he be transferred back to the Hospital. The Hospital was statutorily required to submit a fitness-to-proceed evaluation report to the district court within ninety days of commitment but untimely submitted its report. Defendant moved to dismiss his assault charge on the grounds that the fitness evaluation report had not been timely submitted. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that by agreeing to a continuing course of treatment at the Hospital after the initial report was submitted to the district court, Defendant waived his objection to the timeliness of that report. Remanded. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

In 2014, the district court found Respondent to be suffering from a mental disorder requiring commitment. The court involuntarily committed Respondent to the Montana State Hospital (MSH). On June 2, 2014, the district court issued an order of commitment summarizing the commitment. On June 5, 2014, the district court filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order supporting the June 2 order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s June 2 order of commitment was deficient due and failed to comply with Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-127(8)(a) because it did not contain a detailed statement of the facts as required by section 53-21-127(8)(a); (2) the district court’s June 5 order was not procedurally invalid; and (3) the district court’s findings in the June 5 order were supported by substantial evidence, sufficient to support the decision to commit Respondent to the MSH. View "In re M.P.-L." on Justia Law

Todd Kiser initiated this action by filing a form complaint against Noel Kiser and Marie McDowell alleging that Noel and Marie owed him a sum of money arising out of an asserted agreement among them regarding their father’s nursing care and cremation costs. The small claims court entered judgment in favor of Todd. Noel and Marie appealed the judgment to the district court. The district court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the brief filed by Noel and Marie had been untimely filed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of the briefing deadline imposed in the inapplicable Municipal Court Appellate Rules. Remanded to the district court for reinstatement of Noel and Marie’s appeal and for further proceedings. View "Kiser v. Kiser" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court determined that S.C. should be committed involuntarily to Montana State Hospital (MSH). The State later conditionally released S.C. from MSH. The State then filed an untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release, which the district court granted. The State subsequently filed a second untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release, which the district court also granted. Thereafter, the State filed a third untimely petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release. S.C. objected, arguing that the State's third petition to extend his commitment period failed to comply with the timeliness requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-198. The district court granted the State's petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the expiration of S.C.'s commitment period before the State's first petition to extend S.C.'s conditional release left the district court without jurisdiction; and (2) consequently, the district court was without authority to extend the period of S.C.'s conditions of release when the State filed the second and third petitions. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

The State petitioned the district court to involuntarily commit Appellant to the Montana State Hospital (MSH) for ninety days. The district court appointed counsel to represent Appellant and informed her of her right to be present at the commitment hearing. Appellant did not appear at the commitment hearing. The district court proceeded with the hearing and committed Appellant to MSH for a period not exceeding ninety days. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred and violated her due process rights by proceeding with the commitment hearing without first "obtaining a valid waiver" of her right to be present under Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-119. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, while Appellant's attorney could inform the district court of Appellant's desire to waive her right to be present, the district court should have made further inquiry to determine whether Appellant was capable of making an intentional and knowing waiver decision. View "In re P.A.C." on Justia Law

Appellant was a fifty-five-year-old male with a history of schizoaffective disorder. The State filed a petition to involuntarily commit Appellant, alleging that Appellant was unable to care for his basic needs and appeared to pose a danger to himself and others. After a hearing, the district court granted the State's petition and involuntarily committed Appellant to the Montana State Hospital (MSH), authorizing MSH to administer appropriate medication involuntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Appellant's statutory and due process rights when it failed to obtain a personal waiver of rights under Mont. Code Ann. 53-21-119(1), as Appellant effectively waived his rights by allowing his counsel to inform the judge of his desire to do so; and (2) the district court complied with the statutory requirements in ordering Appellant to take medications as prescribed by his doctors, and this directive was sufficient to authorize involuntary medication. View "In re R.W.K." on Justia Law

Edythe Rice, who was in her late eighties, owned a cattle ranch. Edythe's son, Clark Rice, assisted Edythe in performing ranch duties. In 2006, Clark was driving a tractor in "advanced twilight" without illuminated lights. Juanita Stands struck the tractor's left rear tire. The impact caused Juanita's vehicle to spin into the neighboring lane, where it collided with Vianna Stewart's vehicle. Juanita and Vianna sustained injuries from the accident. The tractor and automobiles were total losses. After five years in litigation, the district court (1) concluded that Clark was negligent per se for violating three traffic statutes; (2) determined Edythe was vicariously liable for the injuries; and (3) concluded that Clark and Edythe were jointly and severally liable for eighty percent of Juanita's claimed damages and one hundred percent of Vianna's claimed damages. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's judgment against Edythe, holding that the district court erred by proceeding to trial without addressing Edythe's competency or ensuring the parties met statutory notice requirements; and (2) otherwise affirmed. Remanded the case for an evaluation of Edythe's need for a conservator and new trial as to Edythe's vicarious liability only. View "Stewart v. Rice" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office filed a petition for involuntary commitment of Appellant. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined that Appellant met the statutory criteria for involuntary commitment and involuntarily committed Appellant to the Montana State Hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented for the district court to determine that Appellant required commitment because he was unable to care for his basic needs and presented an imminent threat of injury to himself or others; and (2) Appellant failed to make a substantial showing that his trial counsel was ineffective. View "In re R.F." on Justia Law