Case Title: STATE EX REL KOSENA v DISTRICT CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-02-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 1 3 7 0 0 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 7 7 STATE OF MONTANA ex rel., BRUCE A. KOSENA, d/b/a THE PUB, R e l a t o r , THE D I S T R I C T COURT OF THE F I R S T J U D I C I A L DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AND FOR THE COLTTY OF LEWIS AND CLARK, THE HONORABLE ARNOLD OLSEN, Judge presiding. R e s p o n d e n t s . ORIGINAL 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 S u b m i t t e d : February 1 0 , 1 9 7 7 . - D e c i d e d : ,m 2 ;q J i P E R CURIAM: The application f o r a w r i t of supervisory control t o review and reverse the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s denial of summary judg- ment t o r e l a t o r i s denied and t h i s proceeding dismissed. For t h e benefit of counsel practicing before t h i s Court i n future proceedings we s e t f o r t h t h e following reasons f o r t h i s denial and dismissal. A n order denying summary judgment i s not an appealable order. Rule 1, M.R.Civ.App.P. Such an order i s reviewable on appeal from a f i n a l judgment. Rule 2, M.R.Civ. App.P. To permit review of such order p r i o r t o f i n a l judgment through the device of supervisory control o r other extraordinary 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 order denying summary judgment i s nonappealable i n the absence of a s t a t u t e authorizing such appeal. 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: C i v i l $2715; 6 Pt.2 Moore's Federal Practice, q56.21121; Switzerland Cheese Asso. v. Hornets Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L ed 2d 23; United States v. Florian, 312 U.S. 656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L ed 1105, rehearing denied 312 U.S. 715, 61 S.Ct. 738, 85 L ed 1145. Also see: Anno: Reviewability of Federal Court's Denial of Motion f o r Summary Judgment, 17 L ed 2d 886. Under s t a t e summary judgment procedures, the v a s t majority of cases have held likewise. See: Reviewability of Order Denying Motion f o r Summary Judgment, 15 ALR3d 899, 902, f o r a collection of cases 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 & Error, $ 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 shownathe prior ruling is no longer applicable or f f i 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 adminis- tration 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 / 1' 8 , i ' 5 % ; f G 6 -- # - + - //#: i - + -- ~hi'ef Justice ,