PHILLIPS v MONT EDUCATION ASSN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13685 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 LARRY L PHILLIPS, . Plaintiff and Appellant, THE MONTANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, a non-profit corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: McKittrick & Duffy, Great Falls, Montana Carroll Blend argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Jardine, Stevenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Montana Hilley & Loring, Great Falls, Montana Alexander Blewett 111, argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: June 8, 1977 Decided: JUN 2 2 Filed:JU( 2 2 1977 Clerk. lgn M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f Larry L. P h i l l i p s brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t defendant Montana Education Association, a non-profit corporation, e t a l . , t o recover damages f o r terminat i o n of h i s c o n t r a c t of employment a s executive s e c r e t a r y of defendant a s s o c i a t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted a motion t o s t r i k e a p o r t i o n of Count V of t h e complaint r e l a t i n g t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , and a l s o t o s t r i k e Paragraph 8 of Count 11, seeking exemplary damages. P l a i n t i f f appealed t h i s o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Defendant a s s o c i a t i o n (MEA) f i l e d a motion with t h i s Court t o dismiss p l a i n t i f f ' s appeal a s t h e o r d e r appealed from i s n o t an appealable o r d e r under Rule No. 1, MoR0App.Ci~.P. B r i e f s were f i l e d and o r a l arguments had on Wednesday, June 8 , 1977. The Court took t h e matter under advisement. Rule No. 1, M.R.App.CSv.P., provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Rule 1. Scope of rules--From what judgment o r o r d e r an appeal may be taken. "These r u l e s govern procedure i n appeals i n c i v i l c a s e s t o t h e supreme c o u r t of Montana from Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t s and o r i g i n a l proceedings i n t h e supreme c o u r t of Montana. The p a r t y applying f o r o r i g i n a l r e l i e f i s known a s t h e p e t i t i o n e r and t h e adverse p a r t y a s t h e defendant. The p a r t y appealing i s known a s t h e a p p e l l a n t , and t h e adverse p a r t y a s t h e respondent. "A p a r t y aggrieved may appeal from a judgment o r o r d e r , except when expressly made f i n a l by law, i n t h e following cases: " ( a ) From a f i n a l judgment entered i n an a c t i o n o r s p e c i a l proceeding commenced i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t , o r brought i n t o a d i s t r i c t c o u r t from another c o u r t o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body.'' (Emphasis added.) I n l i g h t of t h i s r u l e , the question becomes whether o r not an order granting a motion t o s t r i k e c e r t a i n portions of a p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint i s a " f i n a l judgment" and hence appealable. This question was answered i n the negative by t h i s Court i n two separate decisions. 1 ) ' I n S t a t e ex r e l . Great F a l l s National Bank v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 336, 340, 463 P.2d 326, t h i s Court i n reference t o an order of the d i s t r i c t court s t r i k i n g material from the pleadings, s t a t e d : * * *. "The f i r s t issue involves procedural matters (1) t h e order s t r i k i n g two defenses from i t s answer, viz. p l a i n t i f f ' s own a c t s and omissions were the s o l e proximate cause of t h e accident, and (2) the order granting p l a i n t i f f summary judgment on the issue of l i a b i l i t y . These orders a r e not d i r e c t l y appealable, n e i t h e r being denominated an appealable order i n Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P., presumably because each i s interlocutory i n character and reviewable on appeal from f i n a l iudgment .'I (Emphasis added. ) 2) I n Campanella v. Bouma, 164 Mont. 214, 227, 229, 520 P.2d 1073, t h i s Court, i n determining t h e Assue of a p p e a l a b i l i t y of an order granting a motion t o s t r i k e , said: "* * * E s s e n t i a l l y a s i n g l e i s s u e i s determinat i v e of the appeal. That i s whether an order such a s t h i s s t r i k i n g portions of a pleading a s being f r i v o l o u s , impertinent and immaterial i s appealable. " e hold t h a t it i s not. W "* * * An order s t r i k i n g such matters i s not appealable p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment .I' The motion of defendant MEA t o dismiss t h i s appeal i s granted and the cause ordered remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. 9 W Concur: e Mr. Chief Justice Paul G . Hatfield deeming himself d i s q u a l i f i e d , did not participate in t h i s Opinion

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.