DEWAR v CITY OF GREAT FALLS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13821 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 ROBERT DEWAR I Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsCITY OF GREAT FALLS et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John M. McCarvel arqued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Larsen and Gliko, Great Falls, Kontana David V. Gliko argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: December 7, 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court: P l a i n t i f f , a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i t h t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s , Montana, was char&eu ~ i t hh e t h e f t of t LVJO b i c y c l e s from che Great F a l l s P o l i c e Department s t o r a g e a r e a d u r i n g October 1974. Charges were i n i t i a t e d b e f o r e t h e P o l i c e Commission of t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s and t h e o f f i c e r suspended December 26, 1974. Hearing was commenced b e f o r e t h e P o l i c e Commission on February 1 9 , 1975. An imbroglio ensued concerning t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e Commission t o compel testimony. T h i s m a t t e r reached t h e Montana Supreme Court, Cause 1113115, decided A p r i l 6 , 1976, I n t h e Matter of Charges Against Robert DeWar, P o l i c e O f f i c e r , Mont . , - 548 P.2d 149, 33 S t . Rep. 353. On February 1 9 , 1975, t h e Commission was comprised of Joseph R. Marra, Chairman, who was appointed f o r an unexpired term and reappointed May 11, 1970 f o r a t h r e e year term, which e x p i r e d May 1, 1973. He was reappointed September 21, 1973 f o r a t h r e e y e a r term b u t no evidence of c o n f i r m a t i o n appears i n t h e record. D. S. H a r r i s , member, appointed 1968, reappointed May 1 5 , 1972, confirmed, e x p i r e d May 1975, reappointed May 4 , 1976. Marion C. H e f f e r n , member, appointed 1971 t o f i l l vancancy, reappointed May 1 5 , 1972 and confirmed. D . S. H a r r i s was s e r v i n g a s a member on an e x p i r e d term; Joseph Marra's term would e x p i r e May 1, 1976 and Marion H e f f e r n ' s term would e x p i r e May 1, 1975. The c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n upon e x p i r a t i o n of t e r m s appointed two new members t o t h e Commission, Maurice C l a r k , J r . and Charles C. Abernathy, J r . , and reappointed D. S. H a r r i s , a s Chairman. The appointments were confirmed May 4 , 1976. The i n t e r r u p t e d h e a r i n g was recommenced on May 25, 1976, w i t h t h e new Commission. P l a i n t i f f o b j e c t e d t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Commission ( 1 ) because t h e o r i g i n a l commission had n o t been p r o p e r l y appointed i n t h a t t h e r e w a s a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h s e c t i o n 11-180&, R.C.M. 1947 and i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e ; (2) t h a t t h e appointment of two new commissioners c o n s t i t u t e d " p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipulation1'; and ( 3 ) t h a t i n proceeding p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t was denied due p r o c e s s . P l a i n t i f f was o f f e r e d a new h e a r i n g b u t agreed t o c e r t i f y t h e r e c o r d of t h e o l d Commission and proceed from t h a t p o i n t , r e s e r v i n g h i s r i g h t s of c h a l l e n g e t o j u r i s d i c t i o n and l a c k of due p r o c e s s . A f t e r a n a d v e r s e r u l i n g , p l a i n t i f f commenced a n a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Cascade, Hon. B . W. Thomas from t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , p r e s i d i n g . Summary judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f by t h e c o u r t on January 20, 1977: "The motion of d e f e n d a n t s f o r summary judgment came on f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h i s Court on t h e 27th day of December, 1976. P l a i n t i f f was r e p r e s e n t e d by h i s c o u n s e l , M r . John M. McCarvel, and d e f e n d a n t s were r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e i r c o u n s e l , David V. Gliko. A f t e r h e a r i n g o r a l arguments, t h e Court g r a n t e d c o u n s e l time t o f i l e b r i e f s . Now, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b r i e f s and t h e o r a l s t a t e m e n t s made a t t h e h e a r i n g , and a l s o t h e p l e a d i n g s and a f f i d a v i t s on f i l e , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t ; t h a t t h e only i s s u e s t o be determined i n v o l v e q u e s t i o n s of law, and a s t o them t h e Court concludes: " (1) The members of t h e P o l i c e Commission of t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from January 2 , 1975 t o May 4 , 1976, were v a l i d l y h o l d i n g over i n t h e i r o f f i c e s a f t e r e x p i r a t i o n of t h e i r terms and b e f o r e appointment and q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s . A s d e f a c t o members of t h e commission, they v a l i d l y e x e r c i s e d t h e f u n c t i o n s and powers t h e r e o f d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e c e i v e and t o h e a r t h e complaint against the p l a i n t i f f . " ( 2 ) The members of t h e P o l i c e Commission of t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s who were a p p o i n t e d and confirmed on May 4 , 1976, were v a l i d l y and l e g a l l y appointed and confirmed a s s u c c e s s o r s t o t h e members who had been h o l d i n g o v e r , and from and a f t e r t h a t d a t e c o n s t i t u t e d t h e P o l i c e Commission of t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s , w i t h t h e r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e t h e f u n c t i o n s and powers t h e r e o f and t h e r e a f t e r had j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e complaint f i l e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f . "(3) The change i n t h e membership of t h e P o l i c e Commission of t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s on May 4 , 1977, under t h e circumstances shown, d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e t p r o s e c u t o r i a l manipulation' and d i d n o t d e p r i v e p l a i n t i f f of due p r o c e s s . " ( 4 ) The proceedings a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f b e f o r e t h e P o l i q e Commission were n o t c r i m i n a l i n n a t u r e , and t h e resumption of t h o s e proceedings a f t e r t h e change i n membership of t h e Commission, d i d n o t s u b j e c t p l a i n t i f f t o double jeopardy. "(5) Defendants a r e e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. "It i s , t h e r e f o r e , hereby ORDERED t h a t t h e motion of defendants f o r summary judgment be and it i s hereby g r a n t e d , and t h a t judgment be e n t e r e d accordingly." P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s t h e q u e s t i o n s of law enunciated i n t h e summary judgment. The Court, a f t e r a review of t h e record and t h e law, a f f i r m s t h e summary judgment a s e n t e r e d on t h e 5 q u e s t i o n s of law: (1) W do n o t a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t S t a t e e f . I. v. Swanberg, (1956),130 Mont. 202, 299 P.2d M&, t u r n s on t h e s t a t u t o r y language "* * * t h e term of o f f i c e of t h e appointed member of t h e board s h a l l be f o u r (4) y e a r s and u n t i l h i s s u c c e s s o r s h a l l have been appointed and confirmed.",(Section 92-104, R.C.M. 1947), i n s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o hold over beyond t h e s t a t u t o r y term. Swanberg i t s e l f d i r e c t s us t o S t a t e ex r e l . Sandquist v. Rogers, (1933), 93. Mont. 355, 3 6 2 , 9 1 8 P.2d 617, wherein i t i s p l a i n l y s t a t e d ' t h a t every o f f i c e r must c o n t i n u e t o d i s c h a r g e t h e d u t i e s of h i s o f f i c e although h i s term h a s e x p i r e d , u n t i l h i s successor has quali5ied. I t i s a r i g h t and a duty. T h i s r i g h t i s q u a l i f i e d only by express o r c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n of p r o h i b i t i o n i n t h e language of t)ie s t a t u t e . W f i n d no such e x p r e s s e o r implied language claimed i n t h e i n s t a n t cause. See: 3 McQuillin on Municipal Corp. 3d e d . , 5 12.110, p. 472; 6 3 Am J u r 2d, P u b l i c O f f i c e r s and Employees, 5157; S e c t i o n 59-406, R.C.M. (2) 1947. The h o l d i n g under q u e s t i o n of law N o . ( l ) , renders No. (2) moot. (3) W do n o t recommend t h e proceeding h e r e a s precedent e f o r any kind of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g . Y e t , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s e n t i t l e d t o a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s and w i l l only be overcome by a preponderance of t h e evidence. A s we have s t a t e d , t h e r e have been procedures indulged i n h e r e t h a t should n o t be r e p e a t e d , b u t froin a l l of t h a t one can draw only an i n f e r e n c e of misconduct and n o t s u f f i c i e n t showing t o overcome t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption. ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) . These q u e s t i o n s of law were n o t s e r i o u s l y argued on any f a c t s n o t included i n Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above, t h e r e f o r e they must f a l l t o t h e same conclusions. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t 2s a f f i r m e d . Justice W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e n , " #
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.
