CITY OF GREAT FALLS v PRICE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 89-041 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, Plaintiff & Respondent -vsALICE PRICE, Defendant & Appellant ALICE PRICE, ~ross/Plaintiff& Appellant -VS- CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MT, a municipal corporation; RICHARD D. STEVENS; JOHN DOE AUSTIN; WILLIAM B. REID; AUSTIN-REID DEMOLITION, a business association, Cross/Defendants & Respondent APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: La Rue Smith, Great Falls, MT For Respondent : J. David Slovak, City Attorney, Great Falls, MT Mark J. Higgins, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick and Slovak; Great Falls, MT Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 1989 D,ecided: Filed: July 6, 1989 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . A l i c e P r i c e a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, d i s m i s s i n g with prejudice h e r cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e City of Great Falls and Richard "defendants." D. Stevens, hereinafter referred to as W affirm. e P r i c e r a i s e s s e v e n i s s u e s f o r o u r r e v i e w , none o f which d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s Ms. dismissal of t h i s action. W t h e r e f o r e r e s t a t e t h e i s s u e on e a p p e a l a s 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 g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' motion t o d i s m i s s p u r s u a n t t o Rule 1 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. on t h e b a s i s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s were immune from s u i t ? S i n c e we c o n c l u d e t h a t d i s m i s s a l was p r o p e r , we w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d by M s . Price. On October 30, 1987, A l i c e P r i c e was c i t e d f o r v i o l a t i o n of Great Falls City Ordinance purposely allowing waste 8.48.080 paper, for clothing, knowingly boxes, and discarded f u r n i t u r e , a p p l i a n c e s , and o t h e r r u b b i s h t o accumulate on h e r property. The n o t i c e t o a p p e a r and c o m p l a i n t was s i g n e d by Richard D . S t e v e n s , a Zoning T e c h n i c i a n f o r t h e C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s , who i s a named d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s a c t i o n . A t a non-jury g u i l t y of Avenue that i f c r e a t i n g a nuisance on h e r P r i c e was found property court ordered M s . Price nuisance within seven days, and South. abate the t r i a l i n City Court, M s . The at 620 6th t o completely further ordered t h e n u i s a n c e was n o t c o m p l e t e l y a b a t e d by March 2 , 1988, t h e C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s s h a l l do s o and c h a r g e t h e c o s t of t h e procedure t o M s . Price. p r o p e r t y by t h e o r d e r e d d a t e , the court's billed Ms. order, When s h e d i d n o t c l e a n up h e r Richard Stevens, pursuant t o c o n t r a c t e d o u t t h e clean-up P r i c e f o r t h e c o s t , which was $495. p r o j e c t and 5 P '- . .I a * e Ms. a P r i c e appealed her conviction t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court, and i n s u b s e q u e n t p l e a d i n g s , s o u g h t compensatory damages f o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y which was a l l e g e d l y w r o n g f u l l y removed, and f o r m e n t a l d i s t r e s s and s u f f e r i n g , a s w e l l a s p u n i t i v e damag- es a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s . T h e s e damages w e r e a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s R i c h a r d S t e v e n s and t h e C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s , a s w e l l a s t h e two i n d i v i d u a l s h i r e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e c l e a n - u p o f Ms. P r i c e ' s property. The C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s and R i c h a r d Stevens f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s M s . p r i c e ' s c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 , M . R.Civ.P., b a s e d on p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s , including t h e transformation of a criminal matter t o a c i v i l a c t i o n under a r u l e providing f o r a p p e a l s o f c i v i l cases t o d i s t r i c t court. Defendants a l s o argued t h a t they w e r e immune from s u i t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s ' motion, concluding that both the City of Great F a l l s and R i c h a r d S t e v e n s w e r e immune from s u i t f o r damages u n d e r t h e f a c t s of this case. It i s from t h i s o r d e r t h a t M s . Price appeals. The a c t i o n s c o m p l a i n e d o f i n t h i s c a s e r e l a t e t o R i c h a r d S t e v e n s ' a c t i v i t i e s i n c a r r y i n g o u t , on b e h a l f o f t h e C i t y o f Great F a l l s , Judge. t h e s e n t e n c e l e g a l l y imposed by t h e C i t y C o u r t The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n s o d o i n g , M r . S t e v e n s was immune from s u i t u n d e r S 2-9-112, p r e t e d i n Knutson v . State 488. MCA, S e c t i o n 2-9-112, ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 2 1 1 Mont. MCA, as inter- 126, 683 P.2d provides: Immunity from s u i t f o r j u d i c i a l a c t s and o m i s s i o n s . (1) The s t a t e and o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l u n i t s a r e immune from s u i t f o r a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f t h e judiciary. I n regard t o t h a t s e c t i o n t h i s Court f i r s t s t a t e d : ... The immunity s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o j u d i c i a l a c t s It applies t o protect w i t h no s t a t e d l i m i t a t i o n . t h e s t a t e and governmental a g e n c i e s whenever t h e j u d i c i a l power o f t h e s t a t e i s p u t t o u s e i n a judicial action. ... I n t h a t c a s e M s . Knutson a r g u e d t h a t t h e immunity s t a t u t e d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h e Department o f I n s t i t u t i o n s which s h e contended had miscomputed t h e good t i m e a l l o w a n c e . The C o u r t concluded t h a t t h e Department o f I n s t i t u t i o n s was p r o t e c t e d under t h e immunity s e c t i o n , s t a t i n g : . . . S e n t e n c e s a r e pronounced by c o u r t s , n o t by t h e Department o f I n s t i t u t i o n s . K n u t s o n ' s s e n t e n c i n g was t h e r e s u l t o f a j u d i c i a l a c t . F u r t h e r , the immunity s t a t u t e p r o t e c t s any governmental agency i n the a c t of involved - - j u d i c i a l - - sentencing. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s whether o r n o t t h e C i t y a s w e l l a s M r . S t e v e n s a r e p r o t e c t e d by t h e immunity s t a t u t e . Under t h e a n a l y s i s o f Knutson, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y a r e . carrying out the express provisions of the sentence, In Mr. S t e v e n s was d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n an a c t o f t h e j u d i c i a r y and i s t h e r e f o r e a f f o r d e d immunity. S i n c e h e was a c t i n g a s an a g e n t o f h i s employer, t h e immunity s t a t u t e a l s o p r o t e c t s t h e City of Great F a l l s . W h o l d t h a t S 2-9-112, e MCA, provided immunity f o r b o t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s and i t s agent, Richard Stevens. W a f f i r m t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i s m i s s i n g t h e e p l a i n t i f f ' s case with prejudice. 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.