MATTER OF CARRUTHERS v BD OF HOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-515 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF P40TJTANA 114 THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF AL CARRUTHERS AND TOM WILLIAMS, Petitioners and Appellants, THE BOARD OF HORSE RACIIJG OF THE DEPARTIIENT OF COPWRCE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent.. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Robert J. Holland and R. Brian Holland, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Geoffrey L. Brazier, Dept. of Comerce, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Clerk Feb. 22, 1985 231 1985 Mr. Justice Court. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of C. L. A 1 C a r r u t h e r s and Tom W i l l i a m s appeal from a judgment District, Judicial decision of Lewis t h e Board of (hereinafter appellants) t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f of and the Clark County, Horse Racing the First affirming a ( h e r e i n a f t e r Board). W affirm. e F o l l o w i n g t h e e l e v e n t h r a c e a t t h e L a s t Chance Meet i n Helena, Montana, several claims appellants' on of horse July 1983, One foul. 17, of the the stewards rulings ruled on disqualified it t o e i g h t h from s e c o n d p l a c e and moved place. A p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l e d t h e s t e w a r d s ' d e c i s i o n t o t h e Board and a h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h e B o a r d ' s h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r on October 21, 1983. consisted of video tape of evidence, depositions and sworn examiner's a The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d proposed findings, i s s u e d on O c t o b e r 2 7 , stewards after 1983. the race, a t that hearing o t h e r documentary testimony. conclusions The and hearing order were H e reversed t h e decision of t h e f i n d i n g t h e r e was t h e c o n t a c t between a p p e l l a n t s ' s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t h o r s e and a n o t h e r h o r s e d i d not i n t e r f e r e with t h e other horse s o a s t o a f f e c t i t s f i n i s h o r t h e outcome o f t h e r a c e . The Board i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e r and d e c i s i o n o n J a n u a r y 3 1 , 1984 a d o p t i n g i n p a r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t by t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r and r e j e c t i n g h i s d e c i s i o n . The Board s t a t e d t h a t p a r t o f t h e f i n d i n g s w e r e n o t b a s e d on c o m p e t e n t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence contact and that between the the reasoning as to the h o r s e s was e r r o n e o u s . affirmed t h e stewards' decision. effect of The Board the then On review February of 29, the 1984, Board's appellants decision Administrative Procedure A c t , (MAPA). restored Appellants to second requested pursuant s e c t i o n 2-4-101, contended that p l a c e because (1) made o n u n l a w f u l p r o c e d u r e ; their Montana ' s to MCA, horse t h e Board's judicial e t . seq. should d e c i s i o n was: ( 2 ) a f f e c t e d by l e g a l e r r o r ; ( 3 ) c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d ; (4) arbitrary Following the or capricious Board's be or answer, an a abuse pretrial of and discretion. conference was s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 2 3 , 1984. A t t h e conference, t h e c o u r t requested t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t b r i e f s o n w h e t h e r t h e s t e w a r d s o r t h e Board and i t s h e a r i n g examiner w e r e t h e o r i g i n a l triers o f standards of review applied i n t h i s case. after the conference, District the f a c t and what On A p r i l 2 4 , C o u r t made this 1984, minute entry: "Pursuant t o t h e p r e - t r i a l conference t h e Court o r d e r e d respondent [ t h e Board] t o f i l e a b r i e f w i t h i n 10 d a y s , p e t i t i o n e r [ a p p e l l a n t s ] t o f i l e a n o p p o s i n g b r i e f 10 d a y s l a t e r , and r e s p o n d e n t h a s 5 d a y s thereafter t o f i l e a reply brief, a t w h i c h t i m e t h e m a t t e r w i l l b e deemed submitted." The parties submitted their briefs and i s s u e d a n o p i n i o n and o r d e r on J u l y 2 6 , the District Court 1984 a f f i r m i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board. Appellants filed a motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 60 ( b ) M.R.Civ.P. for relief from judgment, They a l l e g e d s u r p r i s e i n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had r e q u e s t e d t h e p a r t i e s o n l y b r i e f the questions discussed at pretrial conference and had r e s e r v e d d i s c u s s i o n on o t h e r i s s u e s u n t i l a l a t e r d a t e . The m o t i o n was deemed d e n i e d a f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o ru1.e o n it w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t s o f R u l e 5 9 ( d ) M.R.Civ.P. A p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t one i s s u e on a p p e a l : Did District the err Court in disregarding the p r o c e d u r e i t t o l d t h e p a r t i e s i t would f o l l o w and i n i s s u i n g a f i n a l o r d e r and judgment p r i o r t o h e a r i n g argument on t h e m e r i t s of t h e case? A t t h e heart of t h i s issue stands the question of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s p r o c e d u r e and s c o p e of r e v i e w when h e a r i n g an appeal Dairy, from an administrative I n c . v. Dept. o f Bus. Reg. proceeding. Vita-Rich ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 341, 553 980 s e t s f o r t h t h r e e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e P.2d scope of judicial strengthens the review. administrative and c o m p l e t e p r e s e n t a t i o n specialized knowledge economy requires ability. The the First, and that agency of review encouraging full evidence t o t h e agency having experience. a is court limited p r o c e s s by functions is a be Second, assigned specialist a in specialist matter and issues, statutory interpretation, according the in judicial to substantive constitutional t h e requirements of a Fair h e a r i n g and t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e supports a finding. T h i r d , a l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l i n q u i r y on t h e f a i r n e s s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e , q u e s t i o n s o f l a w , and t h e e v i d e n c e supporting actions. for the acts as a check on the agency's AA These p r i n c i p l e s u n d e r l y t h e M P s e c t i o n p r o v i d i n g judicial Section decision review of 2-4-704, MCA agency a c t i o n i n a (part of MAPA) contested states, in follows: " ( 1 ) The r e v i e w s h a l l b e c o n d u c t e d by t h e a jury and shall be court without I n c a s e s of confined t o t h e record. alleged irregularities in procedure b e f o r e t h e agency n o t shown i n t h e r e c o r d , p r o o f t h e r e o f may b e t a k e n i n t h e court. The c o u r t , upon r e q u e s t , s h a l l h e a r o r a l argument and r e c e i v e w r i t t e n briefs. case. part, as " (2) The c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y a s t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f fact. The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e a g e n c y o r remand t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. The c o u r t may reverse or modify the decision if s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t have been prejudiced because the administrative Findings, inferences, conclusions, o r decisions are: " (c) made upon u n l a w f u l p r o c e d u r e ; affected "(d) by other error of law; " (e) c l e a r l y erroneous i n view o f t h e reliable, probative, and substantial e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d ; " (f) arbitrary or capricious or c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion " ... Appellants contend t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o hear oral argument as they presentation of t h e i r case. requested prevented Section 2-4-704(1), a full MCA p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s review i s g e n e r a l l y confined t o t h e record but requested. for oral that the court may hear oral argument if The r e c o r d on a p p e a l d o e s n o t r e f l e c t a r e q u e s t argument. The m i n u t e e n t r y made b y t h e D i s t r i c t Court a f t e r t h e p r e t r i a l conference s t a t e s t h a t " t h e m a t t e r will The he deemed District record. submitted" Court's Under following decision the reflects t h e s e circumstances, filing a of review briefs. of the t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r i n r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t h e a r i n g o r a l argument. Case l a w h a s c l a r i f i e d t h e s t a n d a r d s o f r e v i e w s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 2-4-704, binding evidence on in the the Findings of MCA. court "if record." F i r e f i g h t e r s Local No. 521 f a c t by a n a g e n c y a r e there is substantial, credible City of Billings Billings (Mont. v. 1 9 8 2 ) , 651 P.2d 627, 632, 39 S t . R e p . 1 8 4 4 , 1849. T h e r e is a b r o a d e r s c o p e o f r e v i e w on "Where t h e i n t e n t o f s t a t u t e s i s u n c l e a r , legal questions. ... d e f e r e n c e w i l l be g i v e n t o t h e a g e n c y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Where it appears contrary to that agency the legislative interpretation, is intent the clearly will courts not h e s i t a t e t o r e v e r s e on t h e b a s i s o f 'abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . (Citations Billings omitted. ) City F i r e f i g h t e r s L o c a l No. the burden of of 5 2 1 , 651 P.2d a t 632. showing their rights v. I " Billings A p p e l l a n t s have were substantially p r e j u d i c e d by an a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s o r c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s agency d e c i s i o n . City of Commission 1984), (Mont. B i l l i n g s v. 6 8 1 P.2d Montana Human R i g h t s 33, 4 1 St.Rep. 39, 688, 696. In this case, appellants contended below D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d reverse t h e a g e n c y ' s their rights agency's had been decision was prejudiced. factually that the d e c i s i o n because They alleged erroneous in that view of the the e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d , the r e s u l t of unlawful procedure. With r e g a r d t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , t h e District their Court burden evidence in correctly and the making found Board findings l e g a l e r r o r and b a s e d on appellants had had properly different than not carried considered those of the the h e a r i n g examiner. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found no l e g a l e r r o r on t h e r e c o r d . The Board and the interpretations of definitions the of hearing examiner A.R.M. 58-22.807(4) word "jostle. " had applied based The different on District varying Court c o r r e c t l y deferred t o t h e Board's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t e r m noting they were acting within t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n t o apply a d e f i n i t i o n when " j o s t l e " was n o t d e f i n e d i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n s . , The record reviewed by the District Court reflected p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e w i t h no p r e j u d i c e t o a p p e l l a n t s . changed findings stating they of were fact not by the based hearings on The Board examiner competent, after substantial e v i d e n c e and m o d i f i e d h i s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s f o r t h e r e a s o n s that the [A.R.M. hearing examiner 58-22.8071 that incorrect standard of correctly has review. bounds of s e c t i o n s 2-4-621 Court inserted been "something i n omitted" the MCA, rule applied T h i s a c t i o n was w i t h i n and 2-4-623, determined and the an the and t h e D i s t r i c t procedure used was appropriate. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i t
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.
