Title: BUKVICH v BUTTE-SILVER BOW
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-517
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 9, 1982

N o . 81-517 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 DAN BUKVICH, KATIE J'IURFtAY and L E O JACOBSEN, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, BUTTE-SILVER BOW, a p o l i t i c a l subdivision of t h e S t a t e of Montana, and DONALD PEOPLES, e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r B o w Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Recprd: For Appellants: Jardine, McCarthy & Grauman, Whitehall, Montana John J a r d i n e argued, Whitehall, Montana For Respondents: Robert McCarthy argued, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Ross P. Richardson argued, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana Submitted: J u l y 15, 1982 Decided: September 9, 1982 Filed: ijkp 3 I 9 8 2 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e following Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s c a s e c e n t e r s around a pay d i s p u t e between t h e a p p e l l a n t s , Dan Bukvich, t h e c l e r k of t h e District Court, K a t i e Murray, t h e a u d i t o r , and Leo J a c o b s e n , t h e c o r o n e r ; and r e s p o n d e n t s , B u t t e - S i l v e r BOW, a p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n of t h e S t a t e of Montana, Don P e o p l e s , its c h i e f e x e c u t i v e , and its a c t i v e c o u n c i l o f commissioners. A p p e l l a n t s a r e d u l y e l e c t e d and q u a l i f i e d o f f i c i a l s of B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow. They contend t h a t t h e i r s a l a r i e s were f i x e d by t h e passage of r e s o l u t i o n no. 325 and n o t o r d i n a n c e no. 134, a s t h e r e s p o n d e n t s contend. A p p e l l a n t s p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a w r i t of man- d a t e to r e q u i r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o pay t h e s a l a r i e s a s set o u t i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n . Respondents f i l e d a motion to d i s m i s s and a motion to quash a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate. The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d both motions and t h i s appeal ensued. The sole i s s u e h e r e is whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion to d i s m i s s and motion to quash a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate. T h i s Court is unable to make any d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h i s i s s u e a t t h i s t i m e because t h e record on appeal is incomplete. The r e s o l u t i o n is a key i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n and i n looking a t t h e r e c o r d w e a r e unable to t e l l what was contained i n it or how it was passed. Without t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , it is impossible f o r u s to r e n d e r a d e c i s i o n . W e , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r t h a t t h e lower c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s be v a c a t e d and t h a t a h e a r i n g be h e l d to d e t e r m i n e e x a c t l y what t h i s s o - c a l l e d r e s o l u t i o n is and t h e manner i n which it was passed. This c a s e is remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings t o be conducted i n accord w i t h t h i s opinion. W e concur: P A & $ . y , & Chief J u s t i c e