U S MFG DIST CORP v CITY OF
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13188 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 U.S. MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , CITY OF GREAT FALLS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P a u l G. H a t f i e l d , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record : For Appellant : E. F. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d and Ralph Randono a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent : L a r s e n and G l i k o , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana David V. G l i k o a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed : . , -. , - 4 4 7 : i J F e b r u a r y 4, 1976 -: :.E 5 ..j/fj Mr. J u s t i c e C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , County ~ a s c a d e / , h a s d e c l a r e d a p o r t i o n o f Montana's r e c e n t l y amended o b s c e n i t y law, s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f i r m . and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M. 1947, I n t h i s a p p e a l from t h a t d e c l a r a t o r y judgment we r e v e r s e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t and uphold t h e o b s c e n i t y law e n a c t e d by t h e F o r t y fourth Legislature. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e h e r e a r o s e from a somewhat complicated procedural s e t t i n g . U.S.Manufacturing and D i s t r i b u - t i n g Corporation, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s a p p e l l a n t , sought a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t C i t y of G r e a t Falls. A p p e l l a n t s o u g h t t o e n j o i n t h e c i t y from i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h i t s b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e enforcement of a r e c e n t l y e n a c t e d m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e on o b s c e n i t y . The m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n of t h a t o r d i n a n c e , No. 1862, r e a d s : "6-1-9: OBSCENE MATERIAL PROHIBITED: S a l e and D i s t r i b u t i o n of Obscene M a t e r i a l --- I t i s u n l a w f u l t o any p e r s o n t o knowingly send o r c a u s e t o be s e n t , b r i n g o r c a u s e t o be b r o u g h t i n t o t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s f o r s a l e o r d i s t r i b u t i o n o r prepare, publish, p r i n t , exhibit, d i s t r i b u t e o r o f f e r t o d i s t r i b u t e , o r have i n h i s possession with i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e o r t o e x h i b i t o r o f f e r t o d i s t r i b u t e any obscene material." R e s p o n d e n t ' s answer d e n i e d t h e p r o p r i e t y o f i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f and moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o r e s o l v e t h e a d m i t t e d c o n f l i c t between t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e and t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e r e g u l a t i n g o b s c e n i t y . That s t a t u t e provides i n pertinent part: "94-8-110 O b s c e n i t y (1) A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e of o b s c e n i t y when, w i t h knowledge of t h e obscene n a t u r e t h e r e o f , he p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly: " ( a ) S e l l s , d e l i v e r s o r provides, o r o f f e r s o r a g r e e s t o s e l l , d e l i v e r o r p r o v i d e any obscene writing, picture, record, o r other representation o r embodiment of t h e o b s c e n e t o anyone under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r " ( b ) P r e s e n t s o r d i r e c t s an obscene play, dance o r o t h e r performance o r p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h a t p o r t i o n t h e r e o f which makes i t o b s c e n e t o anyone under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r " ( c ) P u b l i s h e s , e x h i b i t s , o r o t h e r w i s e makes a v a i l a b l e a n y t h i n g o b s c e n e t o anyone under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) , o r " ( d ) Performs an o b s c e n e a c t o r o t h e r w i s e p r e s e n t s a n obscene e x h i b i t i o n o f h i s body t o anyone under t h e age of eighteen (18) ; o r " ( e ) Creates, buys, p r o c u r e s o r p o s s e s s e s o b s c e n e m a t t e r o r m a t e r i a l with t h e purpose t o disseminate it t o anyone under t h e a g e of e i g h t e e n ( 1 8 ) ; o r " ( f ) A d v e r t i s e s o r o t h e r w i s e promotes t h e s a l e o f obscene m a t e r i a l o r m a t e r i a l s r e p r e s e n t e d o r h e l d o u t by him t o be obscene. " ( 5 ) N c i t y o r m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e may be a d o p t e d o which i s more r e s t r i c t i v e a s t o o b s c e n i t y t h a n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n and s e c t i o n 94-8-110.1." ~ h u s h i l e t h e m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e and t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e d e f i n e w o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same t e r m s , t h e c i t y o r d i nance p r o h i b i t s s a l e o r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s u c h m a t e r i a l t o t h o s e I over eighteen (18) y e a r s a s well. W e a r e n o t h e r e concerned w i t h t h e wisdom of e i t h e r p r o h i b i t i o n . Appellant joined respondent's r e q u e s t f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment. Hearing was had. Subsequently t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment which s t a t e d i n p a r t : "IT I S THEREFORE ORDERED t h a t S e n a t e B i l l No. 250 [ s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.11 enacted by t h e 4 4 t h L e g i s l a t u r e o f t h e S t a t e of Montana and made e f f e c t i v e on A p r i l 1 4 , 1975, i s unc o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n p a r t by e f f e c t i n g t o r e s t r i c t C i t i e s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s from e n a c t i n g o r d i n a n c e s more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n s a i d S t a t e law and t h a t Ordinance No. 1862, p a s s e d by t h e Commission of t h e C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s on May 6th, 1975, i s v a l i d . " A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w of t h a t judgment by t h i s C o u r t : 1. Whether p r o p e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i c e t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l p u r s u a n t t o Rule 38, Montana R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , was g i v e n ? 2. Whether s e c t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M. 1947, a s amended, a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n view of r u l i n g s of t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t on o b s c e n i t y ? 3. Whether a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s t h e power t o e n a c t a v a l i d and b i n d i n g o r d i n a n c e r e l a t i n g t o o b s c e n i t y i n e x c e s s of l i m i t s imposed on such o r d i n a n c e s by t h e s t a t e l e g i s lature? A p p e l l a n t ' s argument c o n c e r n i n g compliance w i t h Rule 38, M.R.App.Civ.P., Mont . , Mont Gilbert, i s of l i t t l e m e r i t . I n Grant v . Grant, 531 P.2d 1007, 32 St.Rep. . , 191, 193; C l o n t z v . C l o n t z , 531 P.2d 1 6 9 , 32 St.Rep. Mont . , 1 6 9 , 172; and G i l b e r t v . 533 P.2d 1079, 32 St.Rep. 1 6 3 , 165; t h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o r u l e on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l b e c a u s e c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l had n o t been g i v e n p u r s u a n t t o Rule 38. Requir- i n g such n o t i c e t o t h e s t a t e ' s c h i e f l e g a l o f f i c e r i s t o e n a b l e him t o a p p e a r i n d e f e n s e o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s . In t h i s m a t t e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t and n o t i c e t o t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l w e r e accomplished on November 1 9 , 1975. Such n o t i c e p r o v i d e d ample o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e h e a r i n g h e l d F e b r u a r y 4 , 1976. The s p i r i t of t h e r u l e a p p e a r s s a t i s f i e d when such o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e cons t i t u t i o n a l challenge i s given. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e r e j e c t t h e em- p h a s i s which a p p e l l a n t s e e k s t o p l a c e on t h e immediacy o f t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by Rule 38. W e n e x t c o n s i d e r whether t h e s t a t u t e s i n q u e s t i o n , t i o n s 94-8-110 and 94-8-110.1, R.C.M. sec- 1947, a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n v a l i d when viewed i n t h e l i g h t of r e c e n t United S t a t e s Supreme Court obscenity d e c i s i o n s . I n t h i s regard, the d i s t r i c t court made t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w : T h a t t h e most r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s rendered i n t h e a r e a of obscenity p r o v i d e s f o r ' b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s ' t o be a p p l i e d i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of ' o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l ' , t o - w i t : ( a ) whether t h e a v e r a g e p e r s o n a p p l y i n g contempor a r y community s t a n d a r d s would f i n d t h e work, t a k e n a s a whole, a p p e a l s t o t h e p r u r i e n t i n t e r e s t * * *. M i l l e r v. C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 1 5 , 31, 37 L Ed 2d 419, 93 S.Ct. 2607. "I. "11. T h a t t h e 'community s t a n d a r d s ' e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t a r e l o c a l s t a n d a r d s a s opposed t o statewide standards. "111. T h a t t h e s a i d S t a t e law a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h s t a t e w i d e s t a n d a r d s by i t s l i m i t a t i o n on t h e municip a l i t i e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana from p a s s i n g more and r e s t r i c t i v e ordinances than t h e s a i d S t a t e l a w is unconstitutional t o t h a t extent. "IV. T h a t Ordinance No. 1862 of t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s a l l o w s t h e l o c a l community t o e s t a b l i s h i t s s t a n d a r d of o b s c e n i t y f o r p e r s o n s of a l l a g e s and i s t h e r e f o r e v a l i d . " (Emphasis added. ) With r e s p e c t t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of l a w I1 which i s b a s i c t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e i n t h i s m a t t e r , w e c a n f i n d no b a s i s i n t h e law on o b s c e n i t y a s a r t i c u l a t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t f o r s u c h a l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f "community s t a n d a r d s " a s t h a t a r r i v e d a t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Further, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s n o t r e l a t e d t h i s l i m i t i n g d e f i n i t i o n of "community s t a n d a r d s " t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n which it c l a i m s i s v i o l a t e d by t h e s t a t e s t a t u t e s . Statewide standards f o r obscenity are c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y permissible. M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 37 L Ed 2d 419. 1 5 , 93 S.Ct. 2607, The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Kaplan v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 , 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L Ed 2d 492, 498, stated: " * * * t h e C o u r t t o d a y h o l d s t h a t t h e '"contemporary community s t a n d a r d s o f t h e s t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a " ' , a s opposed t o ' n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , ' a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a d e q u a t e t o e s t a b l i s h whether a work i s obscene. * * * " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) I n United S t a t e s v . 1 2 200-Ft. 93 S.Ct. Reels, 413 U.S. 123, 129, 2665, 37 L Ed 2d 500, 507, t h e Supreme C o u r t s a i d : "As t h i s c a s e came t o u s on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s summary d i s m i s s a l o f t h e f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n , no d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e o b s c e n i t y of t h e m a t e r i a l s i n v o l v e d h a s been made. W e have t o d a y a r r i v e d a t standards f o r t e s t i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n r e g u l a t i n g o b s c e n i t y . See M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 413 U.S. a t 23, 25, 37 L Ed 2d * * * " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) a t 431. S u p p o r t f o r t h e broad d e f i n i t i o n o f "community s t a n d a r d s " i s a l s o found i n a n a p p e a l of a r e c e n t f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l p r o s e cution f o r obscenity. I n United S t a t e s v . Danley, 523 F.2d 369, 370, D i s t r i c t Judge R u s s e l l E . Smith, s t a t e d : " I n judging t h e community s t a n d a r d , t h e c o u r t , d e a l i n g a s it was w i t h laws r e g u l a t i n g t h e m a i l s and i n t e r s t a t e commerce, p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e community a s embracing more t h a n t h e S t a t e of Oreqon. While under M i l l e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , s u p r a , t a k e r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h United S t a t e s v . 1 2 200-Ft. R e e l s o f Super 8 MM. F i l m , 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L Ed 2d 500 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , i t i s permissible i n federal prosecution t o define t h e s t a t e a s a community, i t i s c l e a r from Hamling v. United S t a t e s , 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887. 4 1 L Ed 2d 590 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , t h a t c b n s i d e r a t i o n ma; be g i v e n t o s t a n d a r d s w i t h o u t t h e s t a t e . United S t a t e s v . Harding, 507 F.2d 294 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) , c e r t . denied, U.S. , 95 S.Ct. 1437, 43 L Ed 2d 679 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; United S t a t e s v . M i l l e r , 505 F.2d 1247 ( 9 t h C i r . 1974) (Emphasis added.) ." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n No. I1 f i n d s no s u p p o r t i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w on o b s c e n i t y . A judgment based on a n erroneous conclusion of t h e l a w cannot stand. W e n e x t c o n s i d e r t h e t h i r d i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l - - whether t h e m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s t h e power t o r e g u l a t e o b s c e n i t y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment which e x p r e s s l y preempts t h e f i e l d . S i n c e t h e r e a r e no f i n d i n g s of f a c t n o r con- c l u s i o n s of law s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n h a s s u c h a n i n h e r e n t power, t h a t power c a n n o t form a f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h i s Granted though t h i s we judgment may s u g g e s t such i n h e r e n t powers,/view t h e judgment judgment, o r s i m i l a r l y a n a p p e a l from i t . based on t h e d i s t r i c t court's c o n c l u s i o n s of law. v. Georgetown R e c r e a t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n , 56, 32 S t - R e p . 963, 969. Mont . See: C r n c e v i c h , 541 P.2d I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u - t i o n c o n t a i n s a new p r o v i s i o n on l o c a l government i n A r t i c l e X I , S e c t i o n 6 , which s t a t e s i n p a r t : "Self-government powers. A l o c a l government u n i t a d o p t i n q a self-qovernment c h a r t e r may e x e r c i s e - any-power n o t p r o h i b i t e d by t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n , law, o r c h a r t e r . * * *" (Emphasis added. ) The c i t y o r d i n a n c e h e r e which i s a d m i t t e d l y i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p r o h i b i t i o n of s e c t i o n 94-8-110(5), R.C.M. 1947, c a n n o t s t a n d i n t h e f a c e of s u c h a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n . The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . / /Chief J u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
