INTERMOUNTAIN SYSTEMS v C C FARM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-522 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 INTERMOUNTAIN SYSTEMS, INC. a Montana Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C & C FARM AND RANCH SUPPLY, a Montana Corporation Defendant, and STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant-Intervenor APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of Beaverhead, The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding. COUNSELOF RECORD: For Appellant: Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney Solicitor, Helena, Montana General, Clay Smith, For Respondent: Mark David Hoffman, Hoffman & Suenram, Dillon, Wl:z;a (Intermountain); Vincent J. Kozakiewicz, , Montana Submitted on Briefs: .Decided: ClerM November 14, 1996 January 2, 1997 Justice William E. Hunt, Pursuant 1995 to Internal with to Reporter State Clerk the the this MCA, 1995 session contractors the must register shall filing Court not of its result Company. the grant District enforcing registration be as a public appeals from for penalties, of Court, §§ 39-g-101 of construction things, further provides or performs his or all By law, inspection. Section against social such 39-g-202, the of subject Labor to and who fines, to is be also provide, and the applicant is seq. contractor must number information et The statute register security among names and firm or a open to public MCA. Systems, by § 39-g-102, Defendant is the construction Department work to if MCA, that prosecution. seeking passed a non-registered criminal Intermountain as defined Montana that partners partnership. Respondent her provides construction a contractor of the Legislature as § 39-g-101, act and misdemeanor that codified with advertises contract decision Judicial Montana Registration It contractor State the act, Industry. addresses Supreme (State), the of Registration Contractor other Montana by its Fifth Court. We affirm. Contractor mandates the and West Publishing the mandates of and by a report of Montana enjoining which Court Company by Opinion following be published of State County, contractors. The Rules, injunction Beaverhead The 3(c), Publishing Appellant, -410, Paragraph and shall the a preliminary the Section precedent document delivered I, Operating cited.as to Sr. C NCA. & 2 (Intermountain) Inc. C In a suit Farm and for Ranch is breach a of SUPPlY, Intermountain asserted unconstitutional. State that the Notified of the of Montana intervened law. Intermountain injunction final to enjoin the and the State The grant discretionary or denial ruling. grant or denial Mont. 175, 181, status law pending preliminary a injunction will P.2d at 297-98 granted a the injunction Porter 297; v. a preliminary a 176, a district unless there court. is Van Loan, 271 Mont. K & S Partnership 61, (1981), 192 839. has the an adjudication (citing is 271 Mont. not disturb by the district injunction quo pending whether the Court of a preliminary 627 P.2d 836, A preliminary of the a preliminary See also Knudson v. McDunn (1995), 295, the for enforcing This Court abuse of discretion 894 P.2d Court Van Loan v. Van Loan (1995), court's 64, challenge, The District of 895 P.2d 614, 615. 895 P.2d at 615. was appeals. 178-79, a manifest from on the merits. act the constitutionality District State Registration constitutional to defend moved the determination motion Contractor Porter, effect on the of should issue, the Knudson, merits. 627 P.2d at 839). injunction preserving 894 In determining a district court should in no matter anticipate the ultimate determination of the questions of right involved. Rather, the court should decide merely whether a sufficient case has been made out to warrant the preservation of the property or rights in status quo until trial, without expressing a final opinion as to such rights. Porter, 627 P.2d at 840. A preliminary the would commission produce injunction may be granted or continuance a great or of some act irreparable 3 injury "when it during to appears the the that litigation applicant." . Section 27-19-201(2), enforcement be forced to choose between information asserted in violation penalties register. Rather Intermountain enjoining its and asserted that be asserted would disclose if would be subject it to privacy to if to a preliminary to right prosecution required the to register. compelled that of the law until constitutionality it chose make such injunction a should an ultimate not to choice, issue, determination of injunction, the was made. The District Court be that damage because it constitutional criminal than enforcement District also asserted and refusing would of its It great registering it chose to register. fines, Intermountain of the law would cause it Intermountain it MCA. Court agreed. In issuing the found: while the simple act of registering could prevent the enforcement of the sanction provisions of the Act, there is from the evidence a genuine and good faith concern regarding constitutional violations of privacy, and a reasonable expectation thereof, created by information sought on the State's proposed registration form. There was a total absence of evidence showing any compelling interest in overcoming these claimed privacy State rights. the State On appeal, assess carefully likelihood review of success violation of its such violation of the District privacy or to explain of the injury to submit The nature that Intermountain's the nature required contends Court claim to in manner allowing Intermountain "failed to determine meaningful would suffer were it the application." the right injury asserted to privacy. is unlikely While to occur, 4 by Intermountain the State the District was the may argue that Court apparently disagreed. Rather constitutional District than issues Court preliminary is 057 P.2d forth detailed the status additional violations, quo by legal The order Section Community College arguments we cannot Court's remedy fashioned case. 708 (citation the issuance the District We Concur: Valley 701, not have issued, that with constitutional an equitable of a particular v. Flathead 491, case, preserved the waters the issuing the injunction. circumstances Talley muddying and asserted instead An injunction the risk While why a preliminary conclude, Court is affirmed. MCA; 479, the sets State facts was a manifest discretion. to 259 Mont. injunction under the unique of the injunction of the District 27-19-101, (1993), omitted). according should of this abuse of
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.
