Latest 3 Cases: State v. George (Civil Rights), City of Bozeman v. Lehrer (Criminal Law), BNSF Railway Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court (Real Estate & ...

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

State v. George

Citation: 2020 MT 56

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony DUI, disorderly conduct, and driving with a suspended license, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his unpreserved claim that the district court violated his fundamental right to be present when it discuss with counsel in his absence the potential substitution of an alternate juror. During trial, the trial was continued and the jury was excused. Several days later when the trial resumed a juror failed to appear. The court met with counsel to discuss the juror's absence, but counsel did not object to Defendant's absence. The court decided not to substitute an alternate juror, and the trial resumed that day after the juror arrived. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. On appeal, Defendant argued that by holding the conversations regarding the absent juror in his absence the district court violated his right to be present. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the violation of Defendant's right to be present did not result in a miscarriage of justice or call the fundamental fairness of his trial into question.

City of Bozeman v. Lehrer

Citation: 2020 MT 55

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court upholding the ruling of the municipal court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause the criminal trespass charge against him, holding that the municipal court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass to property for entering the fenced backyard of a residence during the night. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court affirmed, concluding that the residential backyard came within the definition of "premises" in the Criminal Code as "any type of structure or building and real property," which did not to be posted to deny a privilege to enter. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the legislature intended to impose a requirement upon property owners in residential neighborhoods to post notice in order to deny or revoke a privilege to enter their property.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court

Citation: 2020 MT 59

Opinion Date: March 11, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

In this action brought against BNSF Railway Company due to its alleged involvement with the asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Montana Asbestos Claims Court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the issues of preemption, strict liability, and non-party affirmative defenses, holding that BNSF was protected from strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts, 521, for some of its actions. After it was discovered that asbestos contaminated materials were shipped through the BNSF railyard and spilled into the soil in Libby for decades Plaintiffs sued BNSF. The Asbestos Court concluded that BNSF was strictly liable because its actions were abnormally dangerous and BNSF could not present evidence of non-party conduct to negate causation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court properly found that Plaintiffs' claims were not preempted by federal law; (2) while BNSF was subject to strict liability, it was protected from strict liability for its actions determined to be taken pursuant to its statutory public duty, and for those actions, it is subject only to claims for ordinary negligence; and (3) the court did not err in finding that BNSF could not use evidence of non-party conduct to refute causation.