DELONG v DOWNES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13629 IN THE SUPREME: COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 JOE A. DeLONG et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vsALEX L. DOWTJES et al., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert Sykes, Judg& presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Maore, Lympus and Dor,an, Kalispell, Montana James Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Patrick M. Springer Kalispell, Montana Norbert F. Donahue Submitted.: December 1, 1977 Decided: DEC 2 2 lgn, --- - .-, M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court : This i s an a c t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n i t i a t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Flathead County, by t h e Board of County Commissioners of t h a t county. Defendants a r e t e n i n d i v i d u a l s whose s i g n a t u r e s appear on a P e t i t i o n f o r I n i t i a t i v e requesting t h a t t h e Board place before t h e general e l e c t o r a t e f o r v o t e a r e s o l u t i o n l i m i t i n g gambling within Flathead County t o bingo, r a f f l e s and g i f t e n t e r p r i s e s t o be conducted by r e l i g i o u s and c h a r i t a b l e organizations. The Board, i n i t s complaint and p e t i t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment f i l e d September 16, 1976, sought judgment t h a t t h e s u b j e c t matter of t h e P e t i t i o n f o r I n i t i a t i v e was o u t s i d e t h e powers and j u r i s d i c t i o n of any board of county commissioners and t h a t it be enjoined and r e s t r a i n e d from placing a r e s o l u t i o n pursuant t o t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e b a l l o t f o r submission t o t h e general electorate. The City of K a l i s p e l l received a s i m i l a r p e t i t i o n and moved t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o intervene a s a p l a i n t i f f . Supported by s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , an o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n was issued by the c o u r t on September 22, 1976. The cause was submitted upon t h e pleadings of t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s . T h e ' D i s t r i c t Court, t h e Hon. Robert C. Sykes p r e s i d i n g , i n i t s order containing f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w , dated September 30, 1976, concluded t h e Board and C i t y were without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n gambling a c t i v i t i e s , and without power t o l i m i t issuance of gambling l i c e n s e s t o nonp r o f i t r e l i g i o u s and c h a r i t a b l e organizations. The c o u r t t h e r e - f o r e r e s t r a i n e d t h e Board and City from placing t h e proposed r e s o l u t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t . Defendants, i n d i v i d u a l s i g n a t o r s of t h e p e t i t i o n , appeal t h e order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. On September 3 , 1976, the,-described p e t i t i o n s f o r i n i t i a t i v e s on gambling, prepared i n accordance with s e c t i o n s 37-301 and 11-1104, R.C.M. Council. 1947, were presented t o t h e Board and t h e City The p e t i t i o n s requested t h a t those bodies submit t o t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r a t e measures t o enact a r e s o l u t i o n and an ordinance, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h a t such bodies: *** may a u t h o r i z e Bingo, ( n o t Keno) , "Section 1. R a f f l e s o r G i f t E n t e r p r i s e s by non-profit r e l i g i o u s o r c h a r i t a b l e organizations within [ t h e C i t y and County]; provided however, t h a t a l l o t h e r forms of gambling, l o t t e r i e s o r g i f t e n t e r p r i s e s , f o r whatever purposes, a r e hereby p r o h i b i t e d * * *. "Section 2. A l l a c t s , ordinances, r e s o l u t i o n s , r e g u l a t i o n s o r r u l e s of [ t h e City and County] i n conf l i c t with t h i s a c t a r e hereby repealed." (Bracketed m a t e r i a l paraphrased). There i s no question a s t o t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e p e t i t i o n s o r t h e manner i n which they were prepared o r c e r t i f i e d . The City and County refused t o honor t h e p e t i t i o n s , on t h e ground t h e requested measures were o u t s i d e the powers and j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e r e s p e c t i v e bodies t o enact and were, t h e r e f o r e , improper s u b j e c t s f o r i n i t i a t i v e . The i n s t a n t a c t i o n ensued. The i s s u e t o be resolved on t h i s appeal i s : Does a r e s o l u t i o n which s p e c i f i e s t h e types of gambling t o be l i c e n s e d and l i m i t s t h e n a t u r e of organizations o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o be li+benseaf o r gambling c o n s t i t u t e a proper s u b j e c t f o r p u b l i c i n i t i a t i v e within t h e l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n and powers of t h e City of K a l i s p e l l and County of Flathead? The t h r u s t of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument i s t h a t l o c a l u n i t s of government have t h e power and j u r i s d i c t i o n , pursuant t o t h e Montana gambling statutes, section 62-701 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947, to limit and control, as well as authorize, gambling and the Such limitation, it is argued, may be various forms thereof. accomplished by way of initiative or referendum, submitted to the qualified voters in such jurisdictions. We cannot sustain this position. A county possesses and can exercise only such powers as are conferred on it by the Constitution and statutes of the state, or such powers as arise by necessary implication from those expressly granted, or such as are required for performance of duties imposed on it by law. Hersey v. Neilson, 47 Mont. 132, 131 P. 30 (1913); Roosevelt County v. State Board of Equalization, 118 Mont. 31, 162 P.2d 887 (1945); Helena Gun Club v. Lewis and Clark County, 141 Mont. 490, 379 P.2d 436 (1963). Therefore, beyond the express powers delegated counties by virtue of section 16-801 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947, and those necessarily implied therefrom, counties are without powers. Any reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power should be resolved against a county's exercise of that power. Sullivan v. Big Horn County, 66 Mont. 45, 212 P. 1105 (1923); Bignell v. Cumins, 69 Mont. 294, 222 P. 797 (1923). Cites and towns are similarly limited in their exercise of legislative powers. Sharkey v. City of Butte, 52 Mont. 16, 155 P. 266 (1916); Penland v. City of Missoula, 132 Mont. 591, 318 P.2d 1089 (1957); Leischner v. City of Billings, 135 Mont. 109, 337 P.2d 359 (1959). The Montana Card Games Act and the Bingo and Raffles Law, section 62-701 et.seq., R.C.M. 1947, by their express terms authorize various forms of gambling. Sections 62-703, 62-717. The gambling a c t s contain a d e l e g a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y t o c i t i e s , towns and c o u n t i e s , by t h i s language i n s e c t i o n s 62-708 and "The governing body authorized t o i s s u e gambling l i c e n s e s pursuant t o t h i s a c t may e s t a b l i s h by ordinance o r r e s o l u t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s governing t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r and t h e i s s u i n g , suppression, and *" revocation of such gambling l i c e n s e s . ** Theabsve s t a t u t e s make p l a i n , t h e s o l e power delegated t o t h e l o c a l governing bodies i s a d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o regul a t e t h e l i c e n s i n g of gambling. The s t a t u t e s r e v e a l no language empowering t h e l o c a l u n i t s t o p r o h i b i t "authorized" forms of gambling i n t h e i r e n t i r e t i e s . Neither i s such p r o h i b i t i o n properly implied from an e x e r c i s e of l i c e n s i n g power. Thus, n e i t h e r t h e City of K a l i s p e l l nor Flathead County has t h e power o r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o l i m i t o r a l t o g e t h e r p r o h i b i t c e r t a i n forms of gambling w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n by way of ordinance o r r e s o l u t i o n . Nor can l o c a l gambling r e s t r i c t i o n s be properly considered an implied e x e r c i s e of p o l i c e powers by t h e l o c a l governing bodies. It i s e n t i r e l y conceivable t h a t a group of c i t i z e n s i n a given l o c a l i t y may d e s i r e t o l i m i t o r p r o h i b i t a c t i v i t i e s such a s gambling on t h e b a s i s of a perceived adverse moral and economic impact upon t h e i r community. However, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e expressly chose t o regard t h e question of gambling a s a matter of s t a t e w i d e , a s c o n t r a s t e d with l o c a l , concern. I n effect, the l e g i s l a t u r e has preempted t h e f i e l d with regard t o t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n of c e r t a i n forms of gambling and card games. I n S t a t e ex r e l . City of Libby v. Haswell, 147 Mont. 492, 414 P.2d 652 (1966), a c a s e concerning a c o n f l i c t , such a s t h e i n s t a n t one,in t h e a r e a of l i q u o r c o n t r o l , t h i s Court recognized t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e : "* 9; * when t h e s t a t e has e x e r c i s e d a power through i t s s t a t u t e s which c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e deems t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n t o be a m a t t e r of g e n e r a l s t a t e w i d e concern r a t h e r than a p u r e l y l o c a l municipal problem, t h e c i t y i s then without t h e e s s e n t i a l a u t h o r i t y o r power t o pass o r adopt any ordinance d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s u b j e c t matter." 147 Mont. 495. See a l s o : C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. Herold, 130 Mont. 138, 296 P.2d 263 (1956); S t a t e ex r e l . Wiley v. D i s t r i c t Court, 118 Mont. C i t y of Bozeman v. Ramsey, 139 Mont. 148, 362 P.2d 206 (1961) and Town of White Sulphur Springs v. Voise, 136 Mont. 1, 343 P.2d 855 (1959), while f a c t u a l l y analogous case, a r e clearly distinguishable. to the instant I n those cases challenges were made t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f l o c a l governmental b o d i e s r e garding c e r t a i n l o c a l t r a f f i c r e g u l a t i o n s a l l e g e d t o be preempted by s t a t e s t a t u t e s . However, t h e s t a t e s t a t u t o r y scheme t h e r e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e 1957 amendment t o t h e Uniform Act Regulating T r a f f i c , g r a n t e d express a u t h o r i t y t o l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s t o s o r e g u l a t e t r a f f i c , a s an e x e r c i s e of t h e p o l i c e power. Such c a s e s have no a p p l i c a t i o n where, a s h e r e , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e g r a n t of power t o l o c a l u n i t s of government i s p a t e n t l y a b s e n t . A p p e l l a n t s would have us hold t h e gambling a c t s c o n f e r upon l o c a l governments a " l o c a l option" i n p e r m i t t i n g o r proh i b i t i n g gambling i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . I t i s argued t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n t h a t l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s "may" i s s u e licenses implies a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a l o c a l option concerning gambling. S e c t i o n s 62-707, 62-719. Such a p o s i t i o n i s untenable. I t i s axiomatic t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i s f i r s t t o be a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e language of t h e lawmakers. Green v. C i t y of Roundup, 117 Mont. 249, 157 P.2d 1010 (1945). W conclude, e from t h e p l a i n language of t h e gambling acts, t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o g r a n t minimal power t o t h e l o c a l governments regarding r e g u l a t i o n of gambling, such power being confined t o a d i s c r e t i o n a r y l i c e n s i n g power. W t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t l o c a l governmental bodies a r e without e t h e power, under t h e Montana Card Games Act and t h e Bingo and R a f f l e s Law t o l i m i t o r p r o h i b i t gambling and t h e approved forms t h e r e o f , except a s expressly provided by such a c t s , w i t h i n t h e i r respective jurisdictions. Accordingly, t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e s t r a i n i n g respondents from placing t h e proposed r e s o l u t i o n s on t h e b a l l o t f o r submission t o the general e l e c t o r a t e i s affirmed. - W Concur: 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.