Montana Supreme Court – Page 5

We reverse and remand the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the Diocese and St. Labre on NCT’s claim for unjust enrichment and the imposition of a constructive trust that may arise from St. Labre’s fundraising activities after 2002. The court improperly determined that NCT had to establish evidence of loss by NCT or wrongdoing by the Diocese and St. Labre in order to make out a claim for unjust enrichment. We also reverse and remand the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the Diocese and St. Labre regarding St. Labre’s fundraising activities before 2002. The District Court should evaluate in the first instance the accrual date of NCT’s unjust enrichment claim pursuant to the standards set forth herein. The District Court can address on remand those defenses raised by the Diocese and St. Labre not resolved through the summary judgment proceedings. We affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on all of NCT’s remaining claims.

Briefs here.

Briefs (Complete) in Montana SCT Case Involving Transfer of Bison Herd to Fort Peck Reservation

November 14, 2012June 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier:

Environmental Appellant Brief

State Appellant Brief

Fort Peck Amicus Brief

Appellee Brief

Environmental Reply Brief

State Reply Brief

Montana SCT Briefs in Northern Cheyenne Suit Alleging Massive Fraud by Catholic Church Charity

July 24, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Roman Catholic Church:

NCT Opening Brief

Diocese Response Brief

St. Labre Indian School Response Brief

NCT Reply

Montana SCT Reverses Indian Parental Termination for Failure to Comply with ICWA

December 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In the Matter of J.W.C.: J.W.C. Opinion

Here is the Court’s synopsis:

The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded the District Court’s order terminating parental rights to four Indian children. Mother, Father, and the children were all members of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (Tribes). The Department of Public Health and Human Services petitioned the District Court for emergency protective services, adjudication as youths in need of care, and temporary legal custody for the children upon finding the parents unable to provide food or shelter. As allowed under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Tribes filed a Notice of Appearance and Intervention and Mother moved to transfer the case to the Fort Peck Tribal Court. The Tribes never affirmatively accepted or declined jurisdiction. Acknowledging this, the District Court maintained jurisdiction, terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father, and denied Mother’s request to continue the termination and appoint counsel for
the children.

On appeal, Mother argued the District Court should have transferred the case to tribal court, as required by ICWA, and should have appointed counsel for the children, as required by Montana law. In child custody cases when Indian children reside off the reservation, a district court generally must transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court unless the tribal court affirmatively declines to accept jurisdiction, as specified by ICWA and its interpretive guidelines. The Tribal Court never declined jurisdiction and the District Court never held the requisite jurisdictional transfer hearing. On remand, the District Court was directed to properly determine jurisdiction, hold a transfer hearing, and appoint legal counsel for the children.

Here are the briefs: Continue reading →

New Turtle Talk Project: State Supreme Court Outcomes — TODAY: Montana

June 6, 2011June 9, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

We at Turtle Talk are going to be spending some time in the coming weeks reporting the outcomes of state supreme courts in Indian law cases. As observers know all too well, tribal interests prevail less than 25 percent of the time before the United States Supreme Court (since 1986). But what about state supreme courts?

We begin today with the Montana Supreme Court, which is an elected court. There is no intermediate court of appeals, so the Supreme Court hears all appeals. There are a smattering of unpublished decisions out of the Court as a result, but we did not count these (usually an affirmation in an ICWA case without tribal intervention).

Tribes within Montana include the Crow Nation, the Confederate Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Fort Peck, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy’s, Little Shell, Northern Cheyenne, Pend O’reille, and Fort Belknap.

A quick note about “outcomes.” We count “wins” and “losses” from the point of view of the relevant tribal government(s). This is necessarily subjective. Some cases we simply cannot clearly count as either a win or a loss (for example, we decided not to count cases where the state court held it had criminal jurisdiction over a non-Indian for a “victimless” crime on the reservation; another example, many ICWA cases where the tribe is not an intervenor). Also, we have may have missed a few.

The “win” rate for tribal interests before the Montana Supreme Court is ~~70 percent~~ 68 percent.

Here is the list of cases we counted:

Continue reading →

Montana Supreme Court Decides In re Estate of Big Spring — Exclusive Tribal Court Jurisdiction over On-Rez Probate

May 22, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion: Big Spring Opinion.

An excerpt:

Julie Big Spring (Julie) and William F. Big Spring III (William) appeal the order of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier County, denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They challenge the District Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the probate of the estate of their father, William F. Big Spring, Jr. (Big Spring), an enrolled member o f the Blackfeet Tribe whose estate property was located within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation at the time o f his death. We reverse the District Court’s order and hold that the Blackfeet Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the probate of Big Spring’s estate (the Estate).

Here are the briefs.