Opinion ID: 888387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: ¶ 55 We now turn to the District Court's conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction over the evidence at issue. ¶ 56 The subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts is established by the Montana Constitution. Miller v. District Court, 2007 MT 149, ¶ 45, 337 Mont. 488, ¶ 45, 162 P.3d 121, ¶ 45. In particular, Article VII, Section 4(1) provides that district courts have original jurisdiction in . . . all civil matters and cases at law and in equity. ¶ 57 Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court's fundamental authority to hear and adjudicate a particular class of cases or proceedings. See Miller, ¶ 43; Ballas v. Missoula City Board of Adjustment, 2007 MT 299, ¶ 15, 340 Mont. 56, ¶ 15, 172 P.3d 1232, ¶ 15; Peña v. State, 2004 MT 293, ¶ 21, 323 Mont. 347, ¶ 21, 100 P.3d 154, ¶ 21 (overruled in part on other grounds by Davis v. State, 2008 MT 226, ¶ 23, 344 Mont. 300, ¶ 23, 187 P.3d 654, ¶ 23); California v. Western Tire Auto Stores, Inc., 32 Ill.2d 527, 207 N.E.2d 474, 476 (1965) (Jurisdiction of the subject matter does not mean simple jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court, but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.). See also Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 16, 126 S.Ct. 403, 405, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (the law of subject-matter jurisdiction is that which delineates the classes of cases within a court's adjudicatory authority); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 11 cmt. a (1982) (rules of subject-matter jurisdiction are those which invest a court with authority to adjudicate a type of controversy). Both this Court and the litigants before it have, at times, failed to properly recognize this basic principle. ¶ 58 For example, in Miller the defendants' argument treated a filing deadline as a jurisdictional rule. Miller, ¶ 42. Despite our previous opinions that justified this characterization, we held that the filing deadline is not a jurisdictional provision because it does not delineate a class of cases falling within the district courts' adjudicatory authority. Miller, ¶¶ 44-46. Likewise, in Peña the defendant asserted that he was bringing a jurisdictional claim when he challenged the legality of the district court's sentencing decision. Peña, ¶¶ 16-18. We held that the challenge was not a jurisdictional claim because it did not dispute the court's ability to hear and determine the case. Peña, ¶ 25. In doing so, we partially overruled State v. Moorman, 279 Mont. 330, 928 P.2d 145 (1996), upon which Peña had understandably relied, because in that case we erroneously treated a sentencing matter as a jurisdictional issue. Peña, ¶ 25 (In analyzing another issue, we erred in our treatment of the concept of jurisdiction, and thus Peña has been overruled in part on other grounds, as noted above. Davis, ¶ 23.) ¶ 59 Similarly, in State v. Garrymore, 2006 MT 245, ¶ 10, 334 Mont. 1, ¶ 10, 145 P.3d 946, ¶ 10, the State misused the term jurisdiction in conjunction with a rule of appellate review. In response, we noted that the State was actually following this Court's lead to the extent we had erroneously indicated that one of our precedentsa decision regarding appellate review of criminal sentencesis a source of jurisdiction. Garrymore, ¶ 10 n. 1. In reality, we noted, the source of this Court's jurisdiction is Article VII, Section 2 of the Montana Constitution. Garrymore, ¶ 10 n. 1. ¶ 60 Unfortunately, these and other cases demonstrate the morass into which one is led . . . by loose talk about jurisdiction. City of Yonkers v. United States, 320 U.S. 685, 695, 64 S.Ct. 327, 333, 88 L.Ed. 400 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Indeed, we have observed that this Court has sometimes been profligate in its use of the term jurisdiction. [6] DeShields v. State, 2006 MT 58, ¶¶ 9-10, 331 Mont. 329, ¶¶ 9-10, 132 P.3d 540, ¶¶ 9-10 (partially overruling State v. Yorek, 2002 MT 74, ¶ 15, 309 Mont. 238, ¶ 15, 45 P.3d 872, ¶ 15, where we erroneously stated that the question of whether a court possesses the authority to impose a sentence is a jurisdictional issue). Thus, it is not surprising that litigants and district courts have also misused the concept of jurisdiction by following our precedents. Here, however, the District Court cited no authority in excluding the subject evidence based on the concept of jurisdiction. ¶ 61 There is no dispute as to whether the District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. As noted above, Fortis has unsuccessfully disputed this jurisdictional issue before the state District Court, the federal District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, in the instant appeal Fortis agrees that the state District Court does have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. See ¶¶ 44-45, supra. Thus, as neither party disputes the court's authority to hear and adjudicate this case, we start from the agreed-upon premise that the state District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. ¶ 62 We reject the notion that a court with subject-matter jurisdiction over a particular case may nonetheless lack jurisdiction over certain evidence presented in support of the claims at issue. The law of subject-matter jurisdiction does not govern the types of evidence properly considered in a case; rather, it designates the various classes of cases within a court's adjudicatory authority. See e.g. Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 126 S.Ct. at 405. Thus, in determining whether to exclude evidence from consideration on summary judgment, the District Court was faced not with a jurisdictional issue, but with an evidentiary issue. A court's jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a casei.e., the authority to hear and adjudicate the actionnecessarily entails the authority to decide all evidentiary issues presented therein, see Peña, ¶ 21, and such jurisdiction is not diminished in any way by the nature of the evidence a party proffers in support of a claim or defense. Thus, as the District Court undisputedly had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, it was obligated to determine the evidentiary issues based on the applicable law, which we discuss below.