STICKNEY v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

a NO. 81303 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA 1981 ARWOOD S T I C K N E Y , HIRAM N E L S O N , D E N N I S N E L S O N , M I K E NELSON, DAN N E L S O N , W I L L I A M O'NEII,L, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , S T A T E O F MONTANA, COUNTY O F M I S S O U L A , M I S S O U L A COUNTY ATTORNEY, "DUSTY" DESCHAMPS, et al., D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M i s s o u l a , H o n o r a b l e J a m e s W h e e l i s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t s : W i l l i a m D. Morris, Missoula, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t s : R o b e r t L. Deschamps, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a Boone, K a r l b e r g & Haddon, M i s s o u l a , Montana T e r r y A. W a l l a c e , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : S e p t e m b e r 3 , 1 9 8 1 Decided: Filed: m\! 2 F ju81 3 1 Clerk N o v e m b e r 25, 1981 J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e i r c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t Missoula County A t t o r n e y Dusty Deschamps, J u s t i c e of t h e Peace J a n e t J e n s e n and Missoula County S h e r i f f Ray Froehlich. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o appeal t h e D i s t r i c t Court's award of $500 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s t o J e n s e n . On May 5, 1980, e i g h t of t h e a p p e l l a n t s (Arwood S t i c k n e y , C h r i s s Nelson, B a r b a r a Welch, D a n i e l Nelson, Dennis Nelson, Hiram Nelson, Michael Nelson and P a t s i e Hoskinson) w e r e i n t h e courtroom o f J u s t i c e J e n s e n a w a i t i n g t h e misdemeanor t r i a l of a p p e l l a n t William O I N e i l l . O ' N e i l l was c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i o n of t h e v e h i c u l a r l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e . The a p p e l l a n t s a r e r e l a t e d t o O ' N e i l l and w e r e p r e s e n t t o show t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r h i s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e s t a t u t e . County. Deschamps was p r e s e n t r e p r e s e n t i n g Missoula B e f o r e t h e t r i a l began, J e n s e n asked t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o l e a v e t h e overcrowded courtroom. They r e f u s e d . found them i n contempt, s e c t i o n 3-10-401(3), s e n t e n c e d e a c h t o one day i n j a i l . MCA, Jensen and immediately The a p p e l l a n t s h e l d i n contempt w e r e t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y by t h e Missoula County The d e p u t i e s and c o n f i n e d i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r one day. a p p e l l a n t s s e r v e d t h e i r s e n t e n c e s and were r e l e a s e d . A c o m p l a i n t f o r damages was f i l e d J u n e 9, 1980. The c o m p l a i n t named a s d e f e n d a n t s t h e S t a t e of Montana, Missoula County, Deschamps, J e n s e n , F r o e h l i c h and t h e a r r e s t i n g deputies. The S t a t e of Montana was d i s m i s s e d by t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t and i s no l o n g e r a d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s a c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n t o O ' N e i l l and t h o s e a p p e l l a n t s found t o be i n contempt, f i v e o t h e r s , a l s o r e l a t e d t o O ' N e i l l and t h e o t h e r a p p e l l a n t s , claimed damages from t h e a r r e s t and confinement. The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e d t h e a c t i o n s of J e n s e n c o n s t i t u t e d o f f i c i a l misconduct i n o f f i c e . They a l l e g e d Deschamps breached h i s d u t y t o " a c t and p r e v e n t a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t when s a i d a c t s [were] committed i n h i s presence'' and t h a t a p p e l l a n t William O ' N e i l l was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o public t r i a l . The remaining damages c l a i m e d r e s u l t e d from t h e j a i l c o n d i t i o n s and e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . The c o m p l a i n t p a r t i c u l a r l y a l l e g e d t h a t , t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s were l i a b l e i n b o t h o f f i c i a l and p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t i e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Deschamps, J e n s e n and F r o e h l i c h , i n b o t h o f f i c i a l and p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t i e s and awarded J e n s e n $ 5 0 0 i n a t t o r n e y fees finding the p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y c l a i m a g a i n s t h e r " f r i v o l o u s and w i t h o u t apparent merit. " A p p e l l a n t s have abandoned t h e i r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Deschamps, J e n s e n and F r o e h l i c h i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , r e l y i n g upon t h e i r a p p a r e n t c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e i r c a u s e c a n be s u p p o r t e d on a t h e o r y of p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y . A p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t two i s s u e s i n t h e a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e named o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y . 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace. Both c h a l l e n g e s must f a i l . W e hold t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly dismissed t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s Deschamps, F r o e h l i c h and J e n s e n i n t h e i r personal capacities. A p p e l l a n t s have f a i l e d t o a p p e a l t h e d i s m i s s a l of t h e a c t i o n based upon o f f i c i a l c o n d u c t , t h e r e f o r e Deschamps, F r o e h l i c h and J e n s e n a r e no l o n g e r defendants i n t h e action. F u r t h e r , we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n c u r r e d by J e n s e n i n d e f e n s e of t h e p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y c l a i m . F i r s t , r e v i e w of t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' c o m p l a i n t mandates t h e conclusion t h e D i s t r i c t Court acted properly. The f a c t s a s p l e a d e d by a p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t no b a s i s f o r p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y . Throughout t h e e v e n t s r e c i t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a c t e d i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s o n l y . Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o a p p e l l a n t s , t h e r e s i m p l y can be no p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e named respondents. Second, t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . W f i n d no e I n Foy v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 507, 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , we a f f i r m e d a n award of a t t o r n e y f e e s a l t h o u g h no s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t u a l o r s t a t u t o r y g r a n t s o provided. W h e l d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t " r e s e r v [ e d ] t h e power e t o g r a n t complete r e l i e f under i t s e q u i t y power," which power s h o u l d be a p p l i e d on a case-by-case basis. Like t h e FOY, d e f e n d a n t who was awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n - J e n s e n , t h r o u g h no f a u l t of h e r own, was f o r c e d t o p e r s o n a l l y d e f e n d against a frivolous action. Judgment a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e

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.