MATTER OF RULES ON DISQUALIFICATION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COIJRT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA O R D E R ...-"..- ------- IT FB&c*D ;.:o\ <j?" RE: RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT --"..-------- 13 2 b (.;r ,-- ' * ,. * ?j;:-K;: & r*,,,: :;*';LJi+T li70id'i ANR PER CURIAM: Pursuant to the power placed in this court by Article VII, Section 2, of the 1972 Montana Constitution, this Court adopts the following rule on the disqualification and substitution of judges: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES Any justice, judge, or justice of the peace must not sit or act in any action or proceeding: 1. To which he is a party, or in which he is interested; 2. When he is related to either party by consaguinity or affinity within the sixth degree, computed according to the rules of law; 3. When he has been attorney or counsel in the actlon or proceeding for any party or when he rendered or made the judgment, order or declsion appealed from. SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGES -- PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES Peremptory challenges shall apply only to District Court proceedinqs. A motion for a substitution of a judge may be made by any party to a District Court proceeding. In a civil case, each adverse party is entitled to two substitutions of a ~udgc. In a criminal case, the state and each defendant is entitled to one substitution of a judge. A motion for substitution of a judge shall be made by filinq a written motion for substitution reading as EoTiows: " T h e undersiqned hereby moves f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a n o t h e r judge f o r Judge - -" i n t h i s cause." The c l e r k of c o u r t s h a l l immediately g i v e n o t i c e t h e r e o f t o a i l p a r t i e s and t o t h e judqe named i n t h e motion. Upon f i l i n g t h i s n o t i c e , t h e judge named i n t h e motion s h a l l have no f u r t h e r power t o a c t i n t h e c a u s e o t h e r than t o c a l l i n a n o t h e r judge, which he s h a l l do f o r t h w i t h , and t o s e t t h e c a l e n d a r . The f i r s t d i s t r i c t judqe d i s y u a i i f i e d s h a l l have t h e d n t y of c a l l i n g i n a l l s u b s e q u e n t d i s t r i c t judges. When a c a s e i s f i l e d i n a multi-juciqe d i s t r i c t , it s h a l l be t h e d u t y o f t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t t o stamp t h e name o f t h e judge t o which t h e c a s e i s a s s i g n e d on t h e f a c e of t h e sumvnons, o r d e r t o show c a u s e , o r i n f o r m a t i o n and a l l c o p i e s t h e r e o f . Whenever a judge i s a s s i g n e d a c a s e f o r t e n c o n s e c u t i v e days and t h e a t t o r n e y s o f r e c o r d on b o t h s i d e s have knowledge of t h e assiqnment f a r t h a t p e r i o d of t i m e , and i f d u r i n g t h i s t i m e no motion f o r s u b s t i t i l t i o n of a judge i s f i l . e d aga.i,iist him, a l l r i g h t s t o move f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of a judge s h a l l be deemed waived by a l l p a r t i e s , u n l e s s t h e p r e s i d i n g judge d i s q u a l i f i e s him.se1.f t h e r e a f t e r i n which c a s e t h e r i g h t t o move f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of a judge i s r e i n s t a t e d and t h e ten-day p e r i o d s t - a r t s r u n n i n g anew, Whenever an a c c e p t a n c e of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s f i l e d by a new judge, it s h a l l be t h e d u t y of t h e c l e r k of c o u r t t o m a i l a copy of t h e a c c e p t a n c e of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e o r i ? j i n a l judge who f i r s t had j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c a s e , and a copy by c e r t i f i e d m a i l w i t h r e t u r n r e c e i p t r e q u e s t e d t o each a t t o r n e y of r e c o r d , S e r v i c e t o a n a t t o r n e y may be made by d e l i v e r y o f a copy p e r s o n a l l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , o r by o b t a i n i n g a w r i t t e n r e c e i p t from t h e a t t o r n e y . Proof of s e r v i c e . s h a l l b e s t a p l e d t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e t i l e . The c l e r k o f c o u r t s h a l l c o n t a c t t h e new judge a c c e p t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e q u e s t t h a t judge t o communicate w i t h t h e judge h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n 'n the f i r s t instance, so that c a l e n d a r i n g can b e e x p e d i t i o u s l y h a n d l e d . When a new t r i a l i s o r d e r e d i n any case., whether by o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r t h e Supreme C o u r t , each a d v e r s e p a r t . y s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o f i l e one motiorl f o r s u b s t i t u t , i o n o f a judge i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d h e r e i n , whether o r n o t t h a t p a r t y h a s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motions f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of a judge. Such motions must b e f i l - e d : a. I f t h e new t r i a l h a s been o r d e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r t h e t . i m e f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e o r d e r has elapsed. b. I f t h e n e w t r i a l h a s been o r d e r e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t , w i t h i n t e n d a y s a f t e r n o t i c e of r e c e i p t of t h e r e r n i t t i t u r h a s been r e c e i v e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s from t h e c l e r k of t h e District Court. DISQUALIFICATION F R CAUSE O T h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l apply t o a l l D i s t r i c t Court judqes, j u s t i c e s of t h e p e a c e , municipnl. c o u r t judqes and t o a l l judges a c t i n g a s a Small Claims C o u r t . A l l r e f e r e n c e s t o judge a r e meant t o i n c l u d e a D i s t r i c t C o u r t judye, a j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , a m u n i c i p a l judge and a judge p r e s i d i n g under t h e Small Claims Act. Whenever a p a r t y t o any p r o c e e d i n g i n any c o u r t makes and f i l e s a t i m e l y and s u f f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t t h a t a judqe b e f o r e whom t h e m a t t e r i s pending h a s a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e e i t h e r a g a i n s t him o r i n f a v o r of any a d v e r s e p a r t y , snch judge s h a l l p r o c e e d no f u r t h e r t h e r e i n . I n t h e c a s e of a d i s t r i c t judge, a n o t h e r d i s t r i c t judqe s h a l l . be a s s i g n e d hy t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e of t h e Supreme C o u r t t o h e a r such d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . If an affidavit is against a justice of the peace, municipal judge or a judge presiding under the Small Claims Act, any district judge may appoint another justice of the peace or municipal judge to hear such proceeding, The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less t.han twe~ttydays before the original date of trial, or yood cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. It shall be accompanied by a certificate o.E counsel. of record stating that it has been made in good faith. DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT: None of the provisions of this rule shall apply to any person in any cause involviny a direct contempt of court. INDIRECT .CONTEMPT OF- COURT: . When a person is charged in a District Court with indirect contempt of court, he shall be entitled to file one motion for substitution of a judge in the manner provided herein, whether or not that party has previously filed motions for substitution of a judge. Such a motion must be filed within ten days of the charge of indirect contempt of court. in that event, the judge of the court against which the contempt is alleged to have been committed shall notify the chief justice of the Supreme Court who shall appoint another district judge to hear and decide the charge. ORDER SUPERSEDES SECTION 3-1-801, MCA: -.- . By the authority of Article VIZ, Section 2, of the 1972 Montana Constrtution, this rule supersedes and is to be used to the exclusion of the rule on disqualification and substitution of judges adopted by Supreme Court Order dated December 29, 1976, and published as section 3-1-801, MCII. EFFECTIVE DATE : .This rule shall take effect on July I, 1981. Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d i s s e n t i n q i n p a r t : T h i s Court p e r m i t s two peremptory d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n a c i v i l . c a s e i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b u t o n l y one d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n a c:rimiiial case. J u s t i c e and l o g i c w q ~ r i r e st h a t two d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a l s o be p e r m i t t e d i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n d i s t r i c t court. l ' h i s C o u r t a l s o does n o t p e r m i t peremptory d i s q u r i l i f i c a t i o r i s a t all i n j u s t i c e c o u r t o r i n m u n i c i p a l c o u r t p r o c e c d i ~ ~ y s . That ks u n f a i r , and t h e r e i s no l o g i c i n n o t p e r m i t t i n g a t l e a s t one peremptory d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n iii t h e s e c o u r t s , A belief by one o r t h e o t h e r p a r t y t h a t a j u s t i c e of t h e peace o r municipal judge w i l l be u n f a i r i s j u s t a s p e r v a s i v e a s such a b e l i e f i n a d i s t r i c t court proceeding. The f a c t t h a t one can a p p e a l t o l i s t r i c t c o u r t from a f i n a l judgment of t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t o r o f t h e municipal. court. p r o v i d e s no c o n s o l a t i o n t o one who h a s had h i s r i g h t s determined by one whonl he wanted t o disqualify. Finally, t h e i n j u s t i c e of not permitting d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n j u s t i c e c o u r t o r i n municipal court proceedings i s carried over i n t o proceedings i n s t i t u t e d i n those c o u r t s f o r i n d i r e c t contempt o f c o u r t . S u b s t i t u t i o n o f judges i s p e r m i t t e d i n a n i n d i r e c t contempt of c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g o r i ( { i n a t i n g i n i i i s t r i c t i:ourt, but not i n j u s t i c e c o u r t o r i n municipal c o u r t . Aq&in, 1 s e e neither: f a i r n e s s o r l o g i c i n making t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . It i s a t b e s t a r b i t . r a r y , arid ,, ,, DATED this 2 9 t h d a y of June, 1 9 8 1 ,

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.