DAVIS v STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 96-625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 STANLEY G. DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; COUNTY OF LINCOLN, SHERIFF S OFFICE, DETECTIVE DON BERNALL, COUNTY ATTORNEY, MONTANA LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF HELENA; LAWRENCE SVERDRUP, SCOTT SPENCER, ROBERT KELLER, Defendants and Respondents, CHRISTINE LeCOUNT, Defendant and Respondent APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, Judge presiding, COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Stanley G. Davis, Pro Se, Troy, Montana For Respondent: Christine LeCount, Pro Se, Eureka, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 24, 1997 Decided: Filed: May 8 r 1997 -MEMORANDUM Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decisionshall not be cited asprecedentand shall be published by its filing as a public documentwith the Clerk of the SupremeCourt and by a report of its result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing Company. The procedural background of this caseis set out in detail in this Court s Opinion and Order of July 30, 1996, In re Marriage of Davis (1996), 277 Mont. 188,921 P.2d 275, in which we affirmed the District Court s Order of Dismissal of Davis petition for review and claim for money damages. In August 1996, Davis tiled a new Petition for Damagesand to Set Aside Judgment and Support Order in DR-83-0141 in which he seeksover one billion dollars in monetary damages; invalidation of the original decreein the dissolution proceeding; custody in his name and inter alia, that certain named attorneys be disbarred. On September 17, 1996, the District Court entered an Order of Dismissal which statesas follows: Petitioner has filed a document entitled, Petition for Damages and to Set Aside Judgment and Support Order in DR-83-0141. The Petition is a rambling diatribe, the point of which is apparently a requestto set asidea 1984 support order and a demandfor over a billion dollars in damagesfrom various individuals and agencies. Aside from the fact that the time for seeking relief under Rule 60(b), M.R.Civ.P. has expired by more than 12 years, the Petition is barred by the doctrine of resjudicata, as this sameaction was previously ruled upon by this Court, and subsequentlyby the Montana SupremeCourt in earlier decisions. Although a few new parties have now been addedas defendants,the essence of this Petition is clearly the same as the earlier case. 2 It would be unjust to require the nameddefendantsto retain counseland contest a lawsuit which [is] so obviously untenable. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Petition is dismissedwith prejudice. 2. The Clerk is directed to return the pleading to Petitioner without filing same. DATED September 16,1996. iSI Michael C. Prezeau District Judge We agreewith the analysis of the District Court. The issuesraised by Davis are yes judicatu in light of the prior order of this Court. It would not only be unjust to require the named defendantsto incur costsrespondingto this nonsensicalpetition, it would, as well, be a complete waste ofjudicial resources. This Court, like the District Court, is extremely busy resolving bona fide legal disputes. Neither Court has the time or the resources to be attending to repeatedfiling of bogus claims such as this. Any further appealsof this nature will result in imposition of damagesunder Rule 32 , M.R.App.P. Affirmed. Justices 3
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.
