RASMUSSEN v BENNETT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 83-208 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 M Y RASMUSSEN and PAULINE RASMUSSEN, Plaintiffs and Appellants, LARRY C. BENNETT, CLIFFORD HARDEN, DANIEL P. JAIIIES, DONALD WHITING, and NELSON DAVES, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, In and for the County of Toole, The Honorable John M. PlcCZ-mvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: James C. Bartlett argued; Hash, Jellison, O'Brien and Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: P. Jbhn 'jg: Paul argued; Alexander Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: !\dov 2 3 I9983 Clerk & Baucus, Great Falls, November 3, 1983 November 23, 1983 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in a libel and slander action filed in the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, State of Montana, in and for the County of Toole. The appellant opens the introduction of his brief with the statement "the facts of this case are a mess." that statement we are in total accord. With Late in this year of 1983, this Court is called upon to consider disputed facts that began in March, 1968. In addition, in a summary judgment decision, we are faced with a situation where the District Court that granted the summary judgment, did not have available to it the depositions of the four defendants, a fact unknown to either counsel until the record on appeal was prepared. In view of the complicated issues raised by this appeal, and the length of the hibernation period that this case lay at rest unattended by the caretakers of our judicial system, we find it necessary to remand the cause to the trial court with the four depositions for reconsideration. The four issues raised for our consideration are: (1) whether the defendants are liable under state law for libel and slander; (2) whether the defendants can properly claim a privilege or qualified privilege on religious grounds; (3) whether the defense of truth, based on religious grounds is applicable; (4) whether the District Court erred in granting summary j u d g m e n t for material questions of defendants, in that there remain f a c t t h a t o u g h t t o b e l i t i g a t e d and t r i e d o n t h e m e r i t s ; and whether t h e D i s t r i c t J u d g e e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary j u d g m e n t when i t d i d n o t h a v e a v a i l a b l e t o it t h e f o u r d e p o s i t i o n s f o r review. As previously controlling, noted necessitating i t is t h i s f i n a l a return to the i s s u e we f i n d trial court. W h i l e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s p u t e d on s e v e r a l f a c t s i n t h e case, it found t h e y were n o t r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e o f Watchtower Bible and Tract S o c i e t y of a letter York from the Inc., d a t e d A u g u s t 3 , 1 9 8 2 , which c o n t r o l l e d t h e l i t i g a t i o n . New Had t h e c o u r t had b e f o r e i t t h e d e p o s i t i o n s , i t i s p o s s i b l e that it could have ascertained that t h e r e was sufficient e v i d e n c e t o go t o a j u r y . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) M.R.Civ.P., is p r o p e r i f : p r o v i d e s t h a t summary j u d g m e n t " * * * t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o interrogatories, and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n y m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d t h a t t h e moving p a r t y is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law." In H a r l a n v. A n d e r s o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 4 4 7 , 4 5 0 , 548 P.2d 6 1 3 , 6 1 5 , t h i s C o u r t commented o n t h e a b o v e r u l e : " T h i s C o u r t h a s o n many o c c a s i o n s commented upon t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f imposed on t h e moving p a r t y under Rule 56. The Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t y moving f o r summary judgment h a s t h e b u r d e n o f showing t h e complete a b s e n c e of any g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a l l f a c t s which a r e deemed m a t e r i a l i n l i g h t of those s u b s t a n t i v e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h e n t i t l e d him t o a j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law. We have a l s o held t h e r u l e o p e r a t e s t o hold t h e movant t o a ' s t r i c t s t a n d a r d ' a n d that: " ' * * * To s a t i s f y h i s b u r d e n t h e m o v a n t m u s t make a s h o w i n g t h a t i s q u i t e c l e a r w h a t t h e t r u t h i s , and t h a t e x c l u d e s a n y r e a l d o u b t a s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of any genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . * * * ' Kober & K y r i s s v. S t e w a r t & B i l l i n g s D e a c o n e s s H o s p i t a l , 1 4 8 Mont. 1 1 7 , 1 2 2 , 417 P.2d 476, 478." Where a s h e r e , before t h e c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e d e p o s i t i o n s i t , and q u i t e p o s s i b l y d i d n o t h a v e a l l t h e f a c t s b e f o r e i t , summary j u d g m e n t was i m p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d . Summary judgment is set aside and the cause returned t o the D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r consideration. W e concur: s-,-Qos*4 Chief J u s t i c e ~ r d ~ u s t i c oeh n C. J Sheehy, s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g : I t h a s b e e n a l o n g t i m e c o m i n g b u t t h e C o u r t h a s now a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y r e v e r s e d M u s t a n g B e v e r a g e Co., I n c . v . J o s e p h S c h l i t z B r e w i n g Company ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. 2 4 3 , 5 1 1 P.2d 1. n is

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.