STATE EX REL KOSENA v DISTRICT CO

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13700 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1977 STATE OF MONTANA ex r e l . , BRUCE A. KOSENA, d/b/a THE PUB, Relator, THE D I S T R I C T COURT O F THE F I R S T J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T OF THE STATE O F MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE COLTTY OF L E W I S AND CLARK, THE HONORABLE ARNOLD OLSEN, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Respondents. O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For R e l a t o r : S m i t h and H a r p e r , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a R o b e r t T . Cumrnins, H e l e n a , M o n t a n a . -F e b r u a r y Submitted: Decided: ,m2 ;q J i 10, 1977 PER CURIAM: The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o review and r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of summary judgment t o r e l a t o r i s denied and t h i s proceeding dismissed. For t h e b e n e f i t of counsel p r a c t i c i n g b e f o r e t h i s Court i n f u t u r e proceedings we s e t f o r t h t h e following reasons f o r t h i s d e n i a l and d i s m i s s a l . an appealable order. An o r d e r denying summary judgment i s n o t Rule 1, M.R.Civ.App.P. reviewable on appeal from a f i n a l judgment. App.P. Such an o r d e r i s Rule 2, M.R.Civ. To permit review of such o r d e r p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment through t h e d e v i c e of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o r o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t i s t o accomplish i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which cannot be done d i r e c t l y . An o r d e r denying summary judgment i s nonappealable i n t h e absence of a s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g such a p p e a l . 10 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & Procedure: C i v i l $2715; 6 P t . 2 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , q56.21121; Switzerland Cheese Asso. v . H o r n e t s Market, I n c . , 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. S t a t e s v . F l o r i a n , 312 U.S. r e h e a r i n g denied 312 U.S. 193, 17 L ed 2d 23; United 656, 6 1 S.Ct. 715, 6 1 S.Ct. 713, 85 L ed 1105, 738, 85 L ed 1145. Also s e e : Anno: Reviewability of F e d e r a l C o u r t ' s Denial of Motion f o r Summary Judgment, 17 L ed 2d 886. Under s t a t e summary judgment procedures, t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of c a s e s have h e l d l i k e w i s e . See: Reviewability of Order Denying Motion f o r Summary Judgment, 15 ALR3d 899, 902, f o r a c o l l e c t i o n of c a s e s from s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n s ; 4 Am J u r 2d, Appeal & E r r o r , $ 104. The reason for the rule is that an order denying summary judgment is interlocutory in character, not res judicata (Fraser v. Doing, 130 F.2d 617) and subject to later review if circumstances warrant : b "* * * And if good reason is s h o w n a t h e prior ruling is no longer applicable or ffi some dther reason should be departed from, the court and should entertain a renewed motion in the interest of effective judicial administration." 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 956.14[2], p. 56-363. Also see: Brown v. Midland National Bank, 150 Mont. 422, 435 P.2d 878 and cases cited therein. We consider that in the usual case good judicial administration requires freedom of action by the district court prior to trial and noninterference on our part at this stage. In the absence of extraordinary and compelling circumstances beyond simply requiring a party to proceed to trial, we decline to review the order of the district court denying summary judgment by supervisory control or other extraordinary writ. It would assist counsel and this Court immeasurably if the district courts would indicate their reasons for denial of summary judgment in future cases. 1 + i / / ' #i : 5 -- ~hi'efJustice / 1' 8 % ; f , , G6 -- #+

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.