Cases
Reported Decisions / Cases: United States Supreme Court
Briefed
Argued: Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016) Successfully defended Montana in a Sixth Amendment speedy trial challenge to post-conviction sentencing delay. The Court ruled for the State in a unanimous opinion.
Briefed Opposition to Petitions for Certiorari After Call for Response: Behm v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., No. 19-197. Successfully defended exercise of eminent domain by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. to install gas line for BNSF Railway Company (cert. denied November 18, 2019).
Montanans for Community Development v. Mangan, No. 18-377. Successfully defended against First Amendment challenge to State campaign finance disclosure laws (cert. denied February 19, 2019).
Lair v. Mangan, No. 18-149. Successfully defended against First Amendment challenge to c
idate contribution limits. (cert. denied January 14, 2019).
Stone v. Montana, No. 17-670. Successfully defended against Double Jeopardy Clause challenge to prosecution on alternative charges after invalid guilty plea (cert. denied March 26, 2019).
Marble v. Poole, No. 17-671. Successfully defended against challenge to Ninth Circuit decision finding State hearing administrator entitled to qualified immunity (cert. denied April 23, 2018).
Theeler v. Montana, No. 16-8637. Successfully defended against Equal Protection challenge to severability of State criminal law (cert. denied October 2, 2017).
Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v. Stapleton, No. 16-806. Successfully defended against First Amendment challenge to Montana's open primaries (cert. denied May 15, 2017).
Davis v. Montana, No. 16-123. Successfully defended against Due Process challenge to State law allowing nonlawyer judges in courts of record to preside over criminal defendant's only trial for a minor jailable offense (cert. denied January 17, 2017).
Courts of Appeals
David Rentz, Jr. v. BNSF Railway Company, 2020 ND 254 (North Dakota 2020) (Briefed
Argued) Successfully reversed 11.3 million jury verdict
judgment against BNSF in a negligence case based on district court's erroneous legal ruling.
BNSF Railway Company v. Asbestos Court, 220 MT 59, 459 P.3d 857 (Montana 2020) (Argued) In an issue of first impression, the Montana Supreme Court adopted the common carrier exception to strict liability in cases involving abnormally dangerous activity.
French v. Jones, et al., 876 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2017) (Argued) Successfully defended Montana's right to have non-partisan judicial elections. A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Montana had a compelling state interest in prohibiting judicial c
idates from seeking or using partisan endorsements,
that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment.
Bullock v. First Judicial District, OP 17-0021 (Montana Supreme Court February 1, 2017) Successfully argued that term of appointment for commissioner of political practices could not be extended beyond the appointment date.
Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, 705 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (Briefed
Argued) In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit reversed adverse decision against client
clarified the st
ards concerning non-party subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena v. Unsworth, 556 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (Briefed
Argued) Successfully challenged Montana's ballot election disclosure
registration requirements as applied to de minimis campaign expenditures by churches
community groups. The Harvard Law Review featured Canyon Ferry as a noteworthy case in its February 2010 issue. See Ninth Circuit Holds Montana Election Contribution Disclosure Requirements Unconstitutional as Applied to De Minimis Contributions, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1043-50 (2010).
American Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009) (Briefed
Argued) Successfully defended a Detroit downtown revitalization initiative that gave matching government reimbursement grants to business owners, including churches, for exterior building improvements. The Court held that Detroit's program did not violate the Michigan Constitution or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
