BEKKI CRAIG, 

No. 93-518 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA -'">"a 

141 

Petitioner, 

-vs . - 

MONTANA TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, ) 

FERGUS COUNTY, THE HONORABLE PETER 

) 

L. RAPKOCH, Presiding Judge, 

Respondent. 

OPINION 

AND 

ORDER 

Petitioner Bekki Craig (Bekki) has petiti oned this Court f 

a writ of supervisory control. Bekki alleges that the District 

Court has committed Ifmanifest error and gross injustice" in 

proceedings involving an action on a Petition for Temporary 

Investigative Authority and Protective Services. 

Because we are denying the petition, we decline to discuss the 

factual allegations made by Bekki. 

One issue is dispositive here: whether the petition satisfies 

the elements necessary for this Court to accept jurisdiction and 

issue a writ of supervisory control. 

Extraordinary writs are governed by Rule 17, M.R.App.P., which 

provides, in pertinent part: 

(a) The supreme court is an appellate court but it is 

empowered by the constitution of Montana to hear and 

determine such original and remedial writs as may be 

necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its 

jurisdiction. The institution of such original 

proceedings in the supreme court is sometimes justified 

by circumstances of an emergency nature, as when a cause 

of action or a right has arisen under conditions making 

due consideration in the trial courts and due appeal to 
this court an inadequate remedy, or when supervision of 

a trial court other than by appeal is deemed necessary or 

proper. 

A writ of supervisory control is one form of extraordinary writ. 

We have previously held that the assumption of original 

jurisdiction forthe purpose of exercising supervisory control over 

a district court is appropriate only when: 

(1) Constitutional issues of major state-wide importance are 

involved; 

(2) The case involves purely legal questions of statutory and 

constitutional construction; and 

(3) Urgency and emergency factors exist, making the normal 

appeal process inadequate. 

State ex rel. Nelson v. District Court (1993), - Mont . -I - 

P.2d -, Cause No. 92-512, decided November 18, 1993. Therefore, 

before we will even consider the merits of a petition for a writ of 

supervisory control, the petition must satisfy these three 

mandatory, threshold elements. 

In this case, BeMcils petition does not meet the three 

elements necessary for the issuance of a writ of supervisory 

control; in fact, her petition does not meet even one requirement. 

The petition does not raise any constitutional issues of major 

state-wide importance, does not involve legal questions of 

statutory and constitutional construction, and does not allege 

facts which give rise to an emergency whereby the normal appeal 

process would be inadequate. We note that Bekkils petition does 

not even address the three criteria, but merely recites facts which 

support the allegation that the District Court erred in its 

decision. The threshold showing has not been met and, under these 

circumstances, a writ of supervisory control can not and will not 
issue. 

We note an increasing number of petitions for extraordinary 

relief are being filed in this Court, especially in domestic 

relations and related cases such as this. We take this opportunity 

to re-emphasize that we will not consider such petitions absent the 

petitioner bringing his or her application within the requirements 

of Rule l7(a), M.R.App.P., as interpreted by our prior decisions in 

this area of the law. The filing of a petition, where compliance 

with those legal mandates is not clearly articulated in the 

petition, and, in fact, where such prerequisites do not exist, is 

wasteful of the time and resources of counsel, of the trier-offact, of this Court, and, most importantly, merely delays the 

ultimate resolution of the underlying issues to the detriment of 

the litigants involved. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bekkils petition for a writ of 

supervisory control should be and the same is DENIED. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court 

serve counsel and the District Court by mail with a copy of this 

Opinion and Order. 

Dated this of November, 1993. 

, 

November 30, 1993 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following 

named: 

Craig R. Buehler 

Attorney at Law 

505 W. Main St., Ste. 210 

Lewistown, MT 59457 

Thomas P. Meissner 

Fergus County Attorney 

712 W. Main St. 

Lewistown, MT 59457 

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General 

Elizabeth Baker, Assistant 

Justice Bldg. 

Helena, MT 59620 

Jon A. Oldenburg 

Attorney at Law 

505 W. Main St., Ste. 309 

Lewistown, MT 59457 

Hon. Peter Rapkoch 

District Judge 

Fergus County, P.O. Box 1124 

Lewistown, MT 59457 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

BY: !&& 

Depu