Court Opinion

ID: 9510656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:58:12.985017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:03.827475
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶30 While a majority of the members of the Court voted differently, I did not agree that we should accept this matter for supervisory control. My reasoning was, and remains, that Hauge’s petition does not meet our test for exercising supervisory control, which requires a mistake of law resulting in a gross injustice, coupled with an absence of-or inadequate-remedy by way of appeal. When we accept matters such as this which are not only lacking in a mistake of law, but for which there is an adequate remedy of appeal, we merely encourage more petitions for writs of supervisory control which require ever-increasing Court resources we could-and should-be devoting to cases on appeal. ¶31 The Court having determined to exercise supervisory control herein, however, I am as bound by that decision as the rest of the people of Montana. On the merits of the arguments raised by Hauge, I join in the Court’s Opinion and Order in its entirety.