STATE v DISTRICT COURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14640 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 STATE OF MONTANA ex re1 JUNE RHODES, DON DIEHL and DELBERT GRIFFIN, Relators, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MISSOULA, AND THE PJXESIDING JUDGE OF DEPARTMENT 1 thereof, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relators: Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Murray and Holt, Missoula, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided : Filed: - 9 fm April 2, 1979 - AUG 9 1919 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1975, r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t g r a n t e d a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f r e l a t o r s i n a s u i t b r o u g h t by R i c h a r d F. W i n t e r and Linda L e e W i n t e r . The c o u r t ' s r u l i n g was b a s e d on t h e holding i n F i s c u s v. Beartooth Ele c tric Cooperative, Inc. ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 319, 522 P.2d 87. No a p p e a l was t a k e n by t h e W i n t e r s . Shortly a f t e r t h i s Court overruled Fiscus i n Piper v. Lockwood Water Users A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , P.2d 646, 35 St.Rep. , Mont. 573 9, t h e Winters f i l e d a motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., t o s e t a s i d e t h e judg- ment e n t e r e d i n 1975 o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e o v e r r u l i n g o f F i s c u s . On F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t v a c a t e d t h e 1975 judgment, and r e l a t o r s a p p e a l e d . This Court dismissed t h e a p p e a l o n J a n u a r y 29, 1979, b u t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e f i l i n g of a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . W i n t e r v. Rhodes ( 1 9 7 9 ) , St.Rep. 217. Mont. , 589 P.2d 1 0 2 1 , 36 R e l a t o r s t h e n a p p l i e d f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l which a p p l i c a t i o n was a c c e p t e d F e b r u a r y 8 , 1979. R e l a t o r s b r i n g t h i s m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e Court on a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l seeking t o o v e r t u r n respondent c o u r t ' s o r d e r o f F e b r u a r y 21, 1978, v a c a t i n g a n e a r l i e r o r d e r g r a n t i n g summary judgment i n f a v o r o f r e l a t o r s ( F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1 9 7 5 ) . The p e r t i n e n t f a c t s a r e t h a t on o r a b o u t March 11, 1971, R i c h a r d F. W i n t e r w a s i n j u r e d i n a l o g g i n g a c c i d e n t . A t the t i m e W i n t e r was employed by C h a r l e s F. K e l l e r , a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r , who h a u l e d l o g s f o r r e l a t o r s Rhodes and Diehl. A f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t Winter r e c e i v e d Workers' Compen- s a t i o n b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h t h e c a r r i e r f o r h i s employer, C h a r l e s Keller. R e l a t o r G r i f f i n was, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , a n employee of r e l a t o r s Rhodes and D i e h l . Winter f i l e d s u i t o n March 8 , 1974, a g a i n s t r e l a t o r s s e e k i n g damages f o r personal injury. The question presented here is whether Rule 60(b)(5) and ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., allows vacation of a judgment solely on the basis that the case upon which the judgment was founded has been overruled. Relators contend that it does not. We agree. The facts in the instant case are almost parallel to those this Court addressed in Fiscus v. Beartooth Electric Cooperative, Inc. (1979), Mont .- 591 P.2d 196, 36 St.Rep. , 333 (Fiscus 11). Fiscus was initially denied relief in 1974 in Fiscus v. Beartooth Electric Cooperative, Inc. (19741, 164 Mont. 319, 522 P.2d 87 (Fiscus I). Four years later this Court overruled Fiscus I in Piper v. Lockwood Water Users Mont .- 573 P.2d 646, 35 St.Rep. 9. , Association (1978), Based on this reversal Fiscus moved to vacate the earlier judgment. This motion was denied, and the denial was upheld by this Court in Fiscus 11, supra. In Fiscus I1 this Court stated ". . . only in an extra- ordinary case should Rule 60(b) be granted. There is con- siderable authority holding that when a decision is later overruled by a court, that it is not extraordinary 591 P.2d at 199 (citing cases). We went on to note: ". . .that while 60 (b)(5) authorized relief from a judgment on the grounds that a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, it does not authorize relief from a judgment on the ground that the law applied by the court in making its adjudication has been subsequently overruled or declared erroneous in another and unrelated proceeding. . . (citations omitted). . there is ample support in the federal courts. that when a decisional law change occurs, subsequent to final judgment in a particular case . final judgment should not be altered." 591 P.2d at 200. . .. . . ." .. A s t h i s C o u r t i s bound by i t s d e c i s i o n i n F i s c u s 11, f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n i s unnecessary. I n v a c a t i n g t h e summary t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t exceeded i t s s c o p e o f a u t h o r i t y judgment, u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P. We, t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e and o r d e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r e s c i n d i t s o r d e r v a c a t i n g summary judgment a n d r e i n s t a t e summary judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e r e l a t o r s . Justice W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e /' . b h / A

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.