Title: KNOX CHOVANAK v SCHOOL DIST NO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13293 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 CHARLES ED KNOX, Relator and Appellant, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA, Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Charles Petaja argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: C. W. Leaphart, Jr.,argued; Helena, 'Montana. Submitted: January 18, 1977 Decided :F~EB 0 3 - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. Relator. Charles Ed Knox appeals from denial of h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of prohibition. Relator, a professional photographer i n Helena, petitioned the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County, f o r a w r i t of prohibition ordering the School Board of School D i s t r i c t No. 1, Lewis and Clark County, t o d e s i s t and r e f r a i n from further proceedings i n the school d i s t r i c t ' s attempt t o secure bids f o r the taking of student photographs. After hearing, the d i s t r i c t court denied the p e t i t i o n based i n essence on i t s finding t h a t a school d i s t r i c t has the s o l e power and authority t o transact a l l f i s c a l business i n the d i s t r i c t and t o perform such f i s c a l duties t h a t a r e i n the best i n t e r e s t of the d i s t r i c t . Section 93-9201, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t a w r i t of pro- hibition: "* * * a r r e s t s the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, o r person * ik when such proceedings a r e without o r i n excess of jurisdic- t i o n of such tribunal, corporation, board, o r person. I I I n S t a t e ex r e l . Fulton v. D i s t r i c t Court, 139 Mont. 573, 579, 366 P.2d 435, appears a f u l l discussion of the nature of t h i s w r i t emphasizing the "excess of jurisdiction" aspect: "'* * * the w r i t of prohibition would not r e s t r a i n a ministerial, executive o r administrative function, no matter how i l l e g a l the a c t thereunder may be so long a s the tribunal sought t o be restrained has j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subject matter i n controversy. A mistaken exercise of such tribunal' s acknowledged powers w i l l not j u s t i f y the issuance of the w r i t . ' " See also: Cases c i t e d i n Fulton and S t a t e v. Board of Medical Examiners, 135 Mont. 381, 339 P.2d 981. Here the School ~oard's jurisdiction clearly covers the area of concern, photographing students on school grounds during school time and involving, at least to some degree, teachers and administrators. The petition does not attack the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, rather it alleges at most a mistaken exercise of the Board's powers. A writ of prohibition will not lie as a remedy to restrain an administrative action. The district court's denial of the writ is affirmed. We Concur: qAh3LqL5@ ~&ef Justice