Goetz v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 18 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 11728,11728 |
| Citation | 153 Mont. 403,457 P.2d 911 |
| Parties | James H. GOETZ, Plaintiff, v. Honorable James T. HARRISON, Honorable Frank I. Haswell, Honorable Wesley Castles, Honorable John Conway Harrison, Honorable John Bonner; as agents of the State of Montana, Defendants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
This is an action against all the members of this Court acting in their official capacities. As such, it is a suit against the Supreme Court of Montana. The case is now pending in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark county.
Plaintiff's complaint briefly alleges that he is denied the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that this Court regularly admits graduates of the Law School of the University of Montana to practice law in Montana without examination, whereas plaintiff is compelled to pass a bar examination before he can be so admitted. (The complaint is silent as to plaintiff's age, citizenship or residency, capacity, educational status, and other qualifications.) Plaintiff prays that section 93-2002, R.C.M.1947, be declared void, and demands that the trial court issue its temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against this Court.
Section 93-2002 was amended to its present form in 1915, and since that time this Court has carried out and enforced its provisions. This section became more than a legislative enactment. It has been applied as a rule of the Montana Supreme Court. The admission and regulation of attorneys in Montana is a matter peculiarly within the inherent power of this Court, subject, of course, to constitutional guaranties, which the Court has always zealously guarded.
Thus, we are faced with a demand by plaintiff that the district court construe a statute this Court has applied for more than 50 years; adjudicate the validity of a rule of this Court; and issue an injunction against the Supreme Court of Montana.
We are not unwilling that the constitutionality of our rule and the legislative enactment be heard and determined on the merits, in a proper case. Indeed, the matter having been raised, it should perhaps be presented to this Court in an appropriate original proceeding. (This would allow The Court, if it chose, to examine the wisdom of the rule, as well as its constitutionality.) Moreover, we apprehend that if plaintiff desires to attack this statute and rule in an adversary proceeding against this Court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. T.D., 05CA0731.
...of supreme court rule should have been certified to supreme court under Supreme Court Rule 29(1)(c)); Goetz v. Harrison, 153 Mont. 403, 404, 457 P.2d 911, 912 (1969) (questions involving the constitutionality of a supreme court rule should "perhaps" be presented to the supreme court in an "......
-
The State Bar of Texas v. Gomez
...due to budgetary shortfalls). But some jurisdictions expressly proscribe suing the state's highest court. See, e.g., Goetz v. Harrison, 153 Mont. 403, 457 P.2d 911 (1969) (holding that a lower court has no supervisory control over the Supreme Court and thus cannot entertain a challenge to a......
-
In Interest of T.D., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0731 (CO 3/9/2006)
...of supreme court rule should have been certified to supreme court under Supreme Court Rule 29(1)(c)); Goetz v. Harrison, 153 Mont. 403, 404, 457 P.2d 911, 912 (1969) (questions involving the constitutionality of a supreme court rule should "perhaps" be presented to the supreme court in an "......
-
Jordan v. State
...v. Court Adm'r. for the Mon. Jud. Branch, 2007 MT 7, 335 Mont. 228, 150 P.3d 927. Moreover, we unequivocally held in Goetz v. Harrison, 153 Mont. 403, 457 P.2d 911 (1969), that the district court may not sit in judgment of this ¶ 22 A similar legal premise is applicable to the case at bar. ......