STATE EX REL OB-GYN GROUP v DIST

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12168 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1972 THE STATE OF M N A A e x r e l . OB-GYN GROUP OTN OF BILLINGS, MONTANA, and ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF M N A A i n and f o r t h e OTN County o f Yellowstone and t h e Honorable N a t A l l e n , Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record F o r Relators: S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. C h a r l e s F. Moses a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Crowley, K i l b o u r n e , Haughey, Hanson and G a l l a g h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Bruce R. T o o l e a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondents: Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana. Michael G. A l t e r o w i t z , B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted: Decided: a . 2 F i l e d t t, $GFT December 6 , 1 9 7 1 FEB 8 8 4972 Mr. John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding s e e k i n g a w r i t o f s u p e r - visory control, o r other appropriate w r i t . R e l a t o r s , The S t a t e o f Montana, e x r e l . Ob-Gyn Group o f B i l l i n g s , Montana, and S t . V i n c e n t ' s H o s p i t a l , a l l e g e t h a t Hon. Nat A l l e n f p r e s i d i n g judge i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county o f Yellowstone, i n t h e case e n t i t l e d Michael J . Crowley and Michele M. Crowley, Husband and Wife, Husband-Coached Lamaze C h i l d b i r t h A s s o c i a t i o n and Bob E . H u l i t , M.D. v. S t . V i n c e n t ' s H o s p i t a l and Ob-Gyn Group o f B i l l i n g s , Montana, r e f u s e d t o d i s q u a l i f y h i m s e l f upon t h e f i l i n g of an a f f i d a v i t o f d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n more t h a n f i f t e e n d a y s p r i o r t o t h e t i m e s e t f o r t r i a l . Re- l a t o r s contend t h a t Judge A l l e n ' s o r d e r o f d e n i a l was i n c o r r e c t and t h e r e i s no a p p e a l from such o r d e r , e x c e p t by an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n t h i s C o u r t where t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e o r d e r c o u l d be reviewed. T h i s C o u r t h e a r d c o u n s e l f o r t h e r e l a t o r s e x p a r t e and on November 11, 1971, i s s u e d an a l t e r n a t i v e o r d e r t o show c a u s e , r e t u r n a b l e December 6 , 1971. Judge N a t A l l e n f i l e d a b r i e f b u t on t h e r e t u r n d a t e d i d n o t a p p e a r o r have c o u n s e l a p p e a r t o a r g u e t h e matter. Counsel f o r r e l a t o r s appeared on t h e r e t u r n d a t e and argued. The f a c t s s e t f o r t h i n Judge A l l e n ' s r e t u r n b r i e f are of import f o r t h e y s e t f o r t h h i s r e a s o n s f o r denying t h e d i s q u a l i f i cation. W e set them f o r t h i n some d e t a i l f o r t h e y p o i n t up a p r o c e d u r a l problem o f which t h i s C o u r t h a s l o n g been aware, and one w e f e e l must b e worked o u t under t h e powers g i v e n t h i s Court by C h a p t e r 1 6 o f t h e Laws o f Montana, 1963. Judge A l l e n a l l e g e s he w a s c a l l e d i n t o t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e Hon. R o b e r t H. Wilson on October 8 , 1971; t h a t t h e matter w a s set f o r n o n j u r y t r i a l on November 2 2 , 1971; t h a t a t t h e r e q u e s t o f a l l c o u n s e l h e set a l l motions and t h e case f o r a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g on Octob e r 27, 1971; and, t h a t a l l p a r t i e s appeared. The c o u r t h e a r d and r u l e d on a l l motions made by p l a i n t i f f s , a s w e l l as a motion t o d i s m i s s and a motion t o quash t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r f i l e d by t h e i n t e r v e n i n g d e f e n d a n t s . A t the close of the p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g , he d e n i e d t h e motions t o dismiss and t o quash t h e temporary restraining order. F. Moses, E s q . , T h e r e a f t e r on November 5 , 1971, C h a r l e s on b e h a l f o f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t t o d i s q u a l i f y him. Judge A l l e n f u r t h e r states he i s s u e d a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t be s t r i c k e n from t h e f i l e and on November 1 0 , 1971, h e amended h i s o r d e r by s t a t i n g i n more p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e basis f o r t h e o r d e r s t r i k i n g t h e a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . Judge A l l e n s t a t e s t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t t o be: Whether d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s v a l i d a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s c o n s e n t t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e major i s s u e s . Counsel f o r r e l a t o r s s t a t e s t h e i s s u e t o be: When d o e s t h e t r i a l b e g i n , a t t h e p r e t r i a l stage o r c a n a d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n b e - f i l e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e allowed by s t a t u t e -- f i f t e e n days? W e think the latter issue is controlling. W e are n o t unaware o f t h e m e r i t i n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s argument t h a t t h e purpose of s t a t u t o r y d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s t o i n s u r e a f a i r t r i a l ; and t o u s e it t o " f e e l o u t " a judge a t a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g i s a n abuse o f t h e r i g h t by c o u n s e l . Here, w e a r e n o t c a l l e d upon t o d e c i d e t h a t i s s u e f o r t h e f i l i n g was w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d . Heretofore t h i s Court has followed t h e s t a t u t e , Section 9 3 - 9 0 1 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s as f o l l o w s : -- "Cases i n which judge may be d i s q u a l i f i e d c a l l i n g i n a n o t h e r judge. Any j u s t i c e , judge, o r j u s t i c e o f t h e peace must n o t s i t o r a c t a s such i n any a c t i o n o r proceeding: "4. When e i t h e r p a r t y makes and f i l e s an a f f i d a v i t as h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , t h a t h e h a s r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e , and d o e s b e l i e v e , he c a n n o t have a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g o r t r i a l b e f o r e a d i s t r i c t judge. Such a f f i d a v i t may b e made by any p a r t y t o a n a c t i o n , motion, o r p r o c e e d i n g , p e r s o n a l l y , or by h i s a t t o r n e y o r a g e n t , and s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h e clerk o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n which t h e same may b e pending. " * * * I n a l l o t h e r c a s e s t h e a f f i d a v i t must b e f i l e d a t l e a s t f i f t e e n (15) d a y s b e f o r e t h e day a p p o i n t e d or f i x e d f o r t h e h e a r i n g or t r i a l o f any such a c t i o n , motion, o r p r o c e e d i n g ( p r o v i d e d such p a r t y s h a l l have had n o t i c e of t h e h e a r i n g of such a c t i o n , motion, o r p r o c e e d i n g f o r a t l e a s t t h e p e r i o d o f f i f t e e n (15) d a y s and i n case he s h a l l n o t have had n o t i c e f o r such l e n g t h of t i m e , h e s h a l l f i l e s u c h a f f i d a v i t immediately upon r e c e i v i n g such n o t i c e ) . * * *" The c a s e l a w i n Montana h a s l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h e r i g h t of disqualification. t i o n 93-901, R.C.M. F l o r e n c e Irr. D i s t . , The r e a s o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e enactment o f sec1947, are f u l l y set f o r t h i n I n re Woodside1 2 1 Mont. 346, 194 P.2d rel. Peery v . D i s t . C t . , 2 4 1 and S t a t e e x 145 Mont. 287, 400 P.2d 648. See a l s o A n n o t a t i o n , 73 ALR2d 1238. A s w e have n o t e d h e r e t o f o r e , C h a p t e r 1 6 of t h e Laws of Montana, 1963 ( S e c t i o n 93-2801-1 - 2801-8, R.C.M. 1947) gave t h i s C o u r t t h e power t o make r u l e s governing c i v i l p r o c e d u r e ; and, by processes set forth by our rules we intend to reexamine this procedural problem. The writ of supervisory control is therefore issued directing the trial court to reinstate the affidavit of disqualification, and that a new judge be selected to proceed with the trial of the cause. We concur: / \I i Associate Justice Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison, deeming himself disqualified, took no part in this Opinion.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.