RYAN v BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-169 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 PAUL RYAN, Defendant and Appellant, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR GALLATIN COUNTY AND GALLATIN COUNTY REFUSE DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bolinger, Higgins and Andes, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael J. Lilly, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 25, 1980 Filed: nEc , I r ! # ! * Decided: UeC ? J ~ i Q k .M, . 9!e * @ Clerk 1 7 3980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 . Defendant plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Judicial District, H o n o r a b l e W. W. of the the Eighteenth i n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n , the Lessley presiding. A t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e County C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f G a l l a t i n C o u n t y , t h e Board o f D i r e c t o r s o f t h e G a l l a t i n C o u n t y R e f u s e D i s t r i c t Number 1 e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h P a u l Ryan on J u l y 11, 1 9 7 8 . secure defendant operation of Montana. Ryan The p u r p o s e o f t h e c o n t r a c t was t o Ryan's the was services Logan to Sanitary commence and equipment Landfill operation for near the Logan, on December 1, 1 9 7 8 , w i t h t h e c o n t r z c t e x p i r i n g a t t h e end of f i v e y e a r s . I n c l u d e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t was t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "6. C o m p l i a n c e w i t h Laws: The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l o p e r a t e t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e i n compliance with a l l a p p l i c a b l e l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , from w h a t e v e r g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c y may h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e o p e r a t i o n . ( C o p i e s o f s a i d l a w s and regulations and recommended standards are a t t a c h e d a s Exhibit "B".) Any c h a n g e s i n s a i d l a w s and r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l b e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t upon r e c e i p t o f a c o p y t h e r e o f . " As i n d i c a t e d , t h e above c l a u s e p r o v i d e s t h a t c o p i e s of a p p l i c a b l e l a w s , r e g u l a t i o n s and recommended s t a n d a r d s would be a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t " B . " However, no s u c h e x h i b i t was attached t o the contract. At MCA, t h e t i m e t h e c o n t r a c t was l e t , s e c t i o n 75-10-221, was i n e f f e c t and p r o v i d e d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(1) Except a s provided may i n 75-10-214, no p e r s o n a s o l i d w a s t e management s y s t e m w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e from t h e d e p a r t m e n t . . . . operate ... " ( 2 ) The d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l p r o v i d e a p p l i c a t i o n forms f o r a l i c e n s e a s provided i n t h i s p a r t . " ( 3 ) The a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l c o n t a i n t h e name and b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s of t h e a p p l i c a n t , l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d s o l i d w a s t e management s y s t e m , a plan of operation and maintenance, and such other information as the department may by rule require." Pursuant to section 75-10-221, MCA, Erick Armstrong, a member of the Gallatin County Health Off ice, requested that Ryan obtain a license from the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for the operation of the sanitary landfill. Armstrong made the request on the date the contract was awarded and provided Ryan with an application, asking that it be returned immediately. As of April 10, 1979, Ryan had yet to obtain the license as requested. Ryan's failure in this regard was based that on his belief it was the Refuse Board's obligation, not his, to obtain the required license. In response to Ryan's failure to obtain the license, Deputy Gallatin County Attorney, Michael J. Lilly, wrote Ryan a letter, dated April 10, 1979, again requesting him to complete the license application Landfill immediately. for the Logan Sanitary The letter also warned Ryan that if he did not complete the application by April 20, 1979, he would be held in breach of contract pursuant to "paragraph 6" of the contract with the Refuse Board. As a result of this letter, Ryan filled out the application and gave it to Lilly. Lilly then forwarded the application to the State Department of Health. The application, marked "incomplete," was returned to Ryan in May 1979. John Geech of the State Department of Health indicated at this time that certain additional information was necessary to complete the application. In addition, Vic Anderson, also from the State Department of Health, met with Ryan at the landfill site in September, 1 9 7 9 , and g a v e Ryan t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d t o be s u b m i t t e d to complete the application. l e t t e r on S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , Anderson sent a followup 1979, confirming t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s he had g i v e n Ryan a t t h e s i t e . Ryan r e c e i v e d t h i s l e t t e r b u t c l a i m s t o have m i s p l a c e d i t b e f o r e r e a d i n g it. As was of December 13, 1979, t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l still not properly licensed. Consequently, the State D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h began r e f u s i n g t o a p p r o v e s u b d i v i s i o n s s e r v i c e d by t h e G a l l a t i n County R e f u s e Board D i s t r i c t Number 1 f o r s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l . The ban was t o r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l a c o m p l e t e l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n was s u b m i t t e d . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e ban was i n i t i a t e d , Ryan was n o t i f i e d orally by Lilly terminating his o p e r a t i o n of license to that contract the County with the Commissioners Refuse Board for t h e l a n d f i l l because he d i d n o t hold operate a solid waste management were the a valid system. A w r i t t e n n o t i c e was a l s o m a i l e d t o Ryan i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was t e r m i n a t e d and t h a t t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s w e r e t o h o l d him i n b r e a c h . After receiving terminated, Ryan notice that furnished the his contract additional r e q u e s t e d by t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h . the additional license information, application actual license, complete however, the on was n o t to be information Upon r e c e i v i n g Department December was deemed the 1979. An 17, issued a t t h i s time, nor was one i s s u e d p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . Two d a y s l a t e r , on December 1 9 , 1 9 7 9 , L i l l y a d v i s e d t h e R e f u s e Board t h a t t h e County C o m m i s s i o n e r s w e r e h o l d i n g Ryan in breach of his landfill contract. The h o w e v e r , v o t e d 7 t o 2 , w i t h one a b s t e n t i o n , Refuse Board, t o r e t a i n Ryan f o r o p e r a t i o n of t h e l a n d f i l l s i t e . The Board of the Refuse Ryan's Board County C o m m i s s i o n e r s i t was w i t h d r a w i n g that contract thereafter with the Refuse informed its approval Board. The of County C o m m i s s i o n e r s t h e n had L i l l y d r a f t a l e t t e r d i s c h a r g i n g Ryan from h i s c o n t r a c t t o be s i g n e d by Bob B r o w n e l l , Chairman o f t h e Refuse Board. A f t e r t h e l e t t e r was s i g n e d by B r o w n e l l , i t was p e r s o n a l l y s e r v e d on Ryan by L i l l y , on December 20, 1979. On December 2 1 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e Board o f C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s and t h e R e f u s e Board f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y and injunctive relief. In addition, plaintiffs filed a m o t i o n f o r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , which was g r a n t e d on t h e same d a y , r e s t r a i n i n g R y a n 's o p e r a t i o n of t h e Logan Sanitary Landfill. A h e a r i n g was h e l d 15, 1980, the court on December 2 7 , entered its 1979. findings On J a n u a r y of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o a permanent i n j u n c t i o n and a d j u d g i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was r e s c i n d e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 28-2-1714, MCA. J u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 . Ryan f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment January 22, 1980. T h i s m o t i o n was d e n i e d , on and d e f e n d a n t Ryan now a p p e a l s . Defendant raises various issues on appeal, but this C o u r t need o n l y f o c u s i t s e f f o r t s on t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. Whether the D i s t r i c t Court erred in finding that t h e R e f u s e B o a r d ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h Ryan r e q u i r e d him t o o b t a i n a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l ? 2. Whether the District Court erred in finding that t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s h a s t h e power t o w i t h d r a w its approval of the contract entered i n t o by t h e Refuse Board and Ryan and t h e n d i r e c t t h e R e f u s e Board t o t e r m i n a t e the contract? Whether 3. the D i s t r i c t Court erred i n finding t h a t t h e County C o m m i s s i o n e r s and t h e R e f u s e Board a r e e n t i t l e d t o r e s c i n d t h e i r c o n t r a c t w i t h Ryan? In regards t o the f i r s t issue, defendant argues t h a t s t a t e l a w i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s t h e R e f u s e B o a r d , and n o t h e , who i s o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e Logan Sanitary Landfill. I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e defendant claims t h a t e v e n i f s t a t e law d o e s n o t s o o b l i g a t e t h e R e f u s e B o a r d , h i s c o n t r a c t d o e s n o t impose a n y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t h e p r o c u r e t h e license. As stated earlier, s e c t i o n 75-10-221, MCA, provides i n part: " ( 1 ) E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n 75-10-214, no p e r s o n may o p e r a t e a s o l i d w a s t e management s y s t e m w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e from t h e d e p a r t m e n t . " ... ... S e c t i o n 75-10-203(6), MCA, d e f i n e s t h e t e r m " p e r s o n " : " ( 6 ) ' P e r s o n ' means any i n d i v i d u a l , f i r m , p a r t n e r s h i p , company, a s s o c i a t i o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , c i t y , town, l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t y , o r any o t h e r governmental or p r i v a t e e n t i t y , whether organized f o r p r o f i t s or not." When these two sections are read together, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e County Commissioners, t h e Refuse Board, or t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d be p r o p e r p a r t i e s on a n a p p l i c a t i o n t o obtain the requisite landfill license. the Department licenses of Health primarily to has in I t may w e l l b e t h a t the municipalities, past issued refuse these disposal d i s t r i c t s and c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s , b u t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n the statute to indicate that an individual, such as d e f e n d a n t , i s exempt from a n o b l i g a t i o n t o s e e k t h e r e q u i r e d license. Defendant contends i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t s i n c e p u b l i c policy dictates government is t h e primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of it t o p r o v i d e s o l i d w a s t e management, l i c e n s e is nondelegable; o b t a i n an o p e r a t o r ' s local the duty thus, to it is p l a i n t i f f s who a r e s o l e l y o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n t h e l i c e n s e . it is t h e d u t y of W agree with defendant t h a t e government t o plan, management s y s t e m . develop, and implement See s e c t i o n 75-10-112(1), a local s o l i d waste However, MCA. we a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t t h i s d u t y s h o u l d be e x t e n d e d t o require all local governments to obtain the requisite l i c e n s e f o r o p e r a t i o n o f a d i s p o s a l s i t e when t h e o p e r a t i o n s by c o n t r a c t a r e t o be p e r f o r m e d by a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . If t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had w a n t e d t o l i m i t l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n t o local governmental The l e g i s l a t u r e , bodies, however, it could have e a s i l y done chose t o merely provide that so. no " p e r s o n " may o p e r a t e a s o l i d w a s t e management s y s t e m w i t h o u t a license, and t h e n d e f i n e d "person" s o a s t o i n c l u d e any i n d i v i d u a l who o p e r a t e s t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e . the case, we cannot find that it is With t h i s b e i n g solely plaintiffs' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o o b t a i n an o p e r a t o r ' s l i c e n s e . Having c o n c l u d e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t c a n be a p r o p e r p a r t y on an application for management s y s t e m , parties' contract a license t o operate a s o l i d waste i t now becomes n e c e s s a r y t o e x a m i n e t h e to determine whether it required p l a i n t i f f s or defendant t o o b t a i n t h e r e q u i s i t e l i c e n s e . Paragraph 6 of the c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e R e f u s e Board and d e f e n d a n t p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s : The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l " -- m p l i a n c e w i t h L a w s : Co o p e r a t e t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e i n compliance with all a p p l i c a b l e l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , from w h a t e v e r g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c y may h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e o p e r a t i o n . (Copies of s a i d laws and r e g u l a t i o n s and recommended s t a n d a r d s a r e Any c h a n g e s i n s a i d attached a s Exhibit "B".) l a w s and r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t upon r e c e i p t o f a c o p y t h e r e o f (Emphasis added. ) ." P l a i n t i f f s contend t h i s p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s defendant t o obtain the license. Defendant argues t o t h e c o n t r a r y . S e c t i o n 28-3-301, provides: MCA, "A c o n t r a c t m u s t be s o i n t e r p r e t e d a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e m u t u a l i n t e n t i o n of t h e t i m e of c o n t r a c t i n g , s o f a r t h e p a r t i e s a s it e x i s t e d a s t h e same i s a s c e r t a i n a b l e and l a w f u l . " S e c t i o n 28-3-303, reduced to writing, ascertained from provides: "When a c o n t r a c t i s i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s i s t o be MCA, the the writing alone if possible, however, t o t h e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r Here, therefore, the is language clear n e e d s no c o n s t r u c t i o n . and Thus, .'I unambiguous Peake (1978), , Mont. and, it i s t h e d u t y of &)aulz S e e 42wJ-a t h e c o u r t t o e n f o r c e i t a s made by t h e p a r t i e s . v. subject, 583 P.2d 425, 1 2 9 5 ; D a n i e l s o n v . D a n i e l s o n ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 35 S t . R e p . 55, 560 P.2d 893. The defendant, with contract, - applicable all 75-10-221, by the laws and parties, regulations The l i c e n s e r e q u i r e m e n t , MCA, disposal required made states by is c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e site a t the issue. terms of governing its a s imposed by s e c t i o n to the operation of Consequently, the that i s t o comply in operating the sanitary landfill, operation. the as contract defendant to obtain was the operator's license. The second issue on appeal is whether the Board of County C o m m i s s i o n e r s h a v e t h e power t o w i t h d r a w i t s a p p r o v a l of the contract entered into by the parties and thereby d i r e c t t h e R e f u s e Board t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n t r a c t . The County a u t h o r i t y over Commissioners have been given supervisory i t s R e f u s e Board by s e c t i o n 7-13-215, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "The b o a r d o f a r e f u s e d i s p o s a l d i s t r i c t e s t a b l i s h e d and o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h i s p a r t h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g p o w e r s and d u t i e s , w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f t- e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s of the counties -hinvolved: " ( 1 ) t o d e v e l o p and a d m i n i s t e r a p r o g r a m f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o r d i s p o s a l of r e f u s e i n t h e d i s t r i c t ; " ( 2 ) t o employ p e r s o n n e l ; " (Emphasis added.) Defendant acknowledges t h a t control board over but the approval argues they of t h e commissioners have actions cannot taken unilateral& c o n t r a c t which t h e y p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d . position defendant cites Board by of refuse terminate a I n support of t h i s Commissioners County v . Morning ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 72 C o l o . 2 0 0 , 210 P. In the of Routt 326. Board of Commissioners of R o u t t County a country j u d g e s e t t h e s a l a r y of h i s c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t , which s a l a r y was a p p r o v e d by t h e b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s . end o f the one y e a r salary t h e Commissioners, without consulting the by resolution, judge. The A t the reduced applicable s t a t u t e read : " ' A l l c o u n t y j u d g e s may a p p o i n t s u c h c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t s and r e p o r t e r s a s s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n of t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e i r c o u r t s , a t s u c h c o m p e n s a t i o n a s s h a l l be f i x e d by s a i d judges w i t h t h e approval of t h e board of county commissioners.'" The C o l o r a d o Supreme C o u r t h e l d : "When t h e s a l a r y h a s b e e n f i x e d by t h e j u d g e and a p p r o v e d by t h e b o a r d , i t i s t h e e s t a b l i s h e d s a l a r y u n t i l t h e two p a r t i e s w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e d i t a g r e e t o change i t . " 210 P. a t 326. This case has been given accord in other cases in C o l o r a d o , b u t t h e h o l d i n g h a s been l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o a c t i o n s involving the unilateral reduction of s a l a r i e s previously a p p r o v e d by a b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s . Wadlow ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 3 1 Colo.App. Board of 1 9 3 , 502 P.2d County C o m m i s s i o n e r s S e e Kanaly v. 83; S c h r o e d e r v. ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 152 Colo. 313, 381 P.2d 820. Montana h a s y e t board of county t o deal with commissioners withdraw a p p r o v a l of the has i s s u e of w h e t h e r an implied power a to an a c t i o n t a k e n by i t s r e f u s e b o a r d . I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t o f any s u c h p o w e r , we l o o k t o 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . , Art. X I , § 4 , which p r o v i d e s : "(1) A l o c a l government u n i t w i t h o u t s e l f government powers has t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l powers: " ( b ) A c o u n t y h a s l e g i s l a t i v e , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o t h e r p o w e r s p r o v i d e d o r i m p l i e d by l a w . " ( 2 ) The powers o f i n c o r p o r a t e d c i t i e s and t o w n s and c o u n t i e s s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d . " I t i s h e l d t h a t when a b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s i s given an e x p r e s s power of approval, i s t o be s u c h power c o m p l i m e n t e d by t h e i m p l i e d power t o w i t h h o l d a p p r o v a l upon a showing o f a d e q u a t e c a u s e . S e e McCarten v . S a n d e r s o n e t . al. 109 (1941), e x t e n s i o n of 111 Mont. an 407, i m p l i e d power P.2d 1108. t o withhold A logical i s an approval i m p l i e d power t o w i t h d r a w a p p r o v a l . In this instance, the Refuse Board entered into a b i n d i n g c o n t r a c t w i t h d e f e n d a n t which was a p p r o v e d by t h e County C o m m i s s i o n e r s . t h a t defendant A p r o v i s i o n of t h a t c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s s a t i s f y s t a t e licensing requirements. R e f u s e B o a r d , however, The f a i l e d t o e n f o r c e t h i s p r o v i s i o n and a l l o w e d t h e l a n d f i l l t o be o p e r a t e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f l a w . a result of the Board's Department of H e a l t h , refusing the failure, Vic thereby exposing possible liability. approval of the the began on s u b d i v i s i o n s i n County Commissioners to With t h i s b e i n g t h e c a s e , w i t h d r a w a l o f defendant's s u p p o r t e d by of S o l i d Waste Management B u r e a u , t o l i f t sanitary restrictions area, Anderson As contract adequate cause, i s an o b v i o u s and s h o u l d be necessity, deemed proper under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . W a c k n o w l e d g e t h e C o l o r a d o c a s e c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t b u t e find that the circumstances distinguished. changing set In of this involved instance circumstances, we here are arising should dealing after the be with a initial approval, t h a t has v i r t u a l l y eliminated t h e propriety of t h e approval. should Therefore, be extended the the Board implied of County power to omm missioners withdraw its a p p r o v a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t r a c t and d i r e c t t h e R e f u s e Board t o terminate t h e contract. The third issue raised i s whether plaintiffs are e n t i t l e d t o rescind the contract with defendant. S e c t i o n 28-2-1711, MCA, provides i n pertinent part: "A p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t may r e s c i n d t h e same i n t h e following c a s e s only: " ( 2 ) i f , t o t h e f a u l t o f t h e p a r t y a s t o whom h e rescinds, the consideration for h i s obligation f a i l s i n whole o r i n p a r t ; " A claim for the action is r e s c i s s i o n m u s t a l s o e s t a b l i s h damages i f based on partial or total failure of consideration. S e e B e i e r l e v . T a y l o r ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 4 3 6 , 5 2 4 P.2d Damages i n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n c a n be shown by 783. pecuniary l o s s or the a l t e r a t i o n of one's position t o his prejudice. See v . Here, ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 90 Mont. 489, 5-043- madaon m a P.2d 475. w defendant, d u e t o h i s own f a u l t and disregard, f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t o f o b t a i n i n g a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e l a n d f i l l i n accordance with s e c t i o n 75-10-221, As a and MCA, result of paragraph this 6 of failure, the parties' the Department contract. of Health, t h r o u g h t h e S o l i d Waste Management B u r e a u , began r e f u s i n g t o l i f t s a n i t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s on p r o p o s e d area. This refusal, those subdivisions in effect, for solid subdivisions i n the prevented waste disposal exposed p l a i n t i f f s t o p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y . this instance would arise from t h e approval of other and thereby The l i a b i l i t y i n parties mandamus t o compel p e r f o r m a n c e o f p l a i n t i f f s ' seeking statutory duty t o " e n f o r c e D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h and E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e s o r L o c a l Board o f Health r u l e s pertaining c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l o f MCA refuse." t o the storage, S e e s e c t i o n 7-13-215, . i s a p p a r e n t from a r e v i e w o f It the County contract, fault Commissioners chose to t h e r e was a f a i l u r e o f of defendant, the matter terminate t h a t when defendant's c o n s i d e r a t i o n through t h e resulting in an of Consequently, p l a i n t i f f s ' position t o their prejudice, alteration the D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p r o p e r i n r e s c i n d i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . Defendant prior contends that t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of contends rejecting that laches these bars arguments, he was entitled his contract. rescission we need by only to hearing Defendant a l s o plaintiffs. note that In upon r e v i e w i n g t h e s u b m i t t e d t r a n s c r i p t and D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i l e , we find t h a t defendant improperly raises these issues for t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . as a basis Natural for failed reversal. to contentions, authority. See Northern P l a i n s v. (1979), Resources Defendant Thus, t h e y w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d has listed discuss numerous their or support Thus, the , Mont. any other application, conclusions Board of 594 P.2d issues but present with error deemed t o b e w a i v e d w i t h o u t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 230, 321 P.2d 1 0 8 0 . 1 The decision of W concur: e @, , ,a J.y,& Chief J u s t i c e the has his applicable a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of C h u t e v . B r i n s k i ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 1 3 3 Mont. 297, are See La

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.