State ex rel. Turnbladh v. District Court, Ramsey County, Second Judicial Dist., 38237

Citation259 Minn. 228,107 N.W.2d 307
Decision Date23 December 1960
Docket NumberNo. 38237,38237
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota ex rel. Will C. TURNBLADH, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Corrections, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT of State of Minnesota, COUNTY OF RAMSEY, SECOND JUDICIALDISTRICT, and Honorable Clayton Parks, Judge thereof, and Douglas C. Rigg,Respondents.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Parks, Judge thereof, and Douglas C.

Rigg,Respondents.

No. 38237.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 23, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The doctrine of res judicata applies to some administrative proceedings, when the reasons for it are present, but not to all administrative proceedings.

2. A private conference between a department head and a subordinate executive relating to the conduct of that department is not a 'hearing' or a 'contested case' within the meaning of Minn.St. 15.0418.

3. Proceedings relating to discharge of a public employee are administrative in nature, and the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to them.

4. An administrative agency has the power to reopen, rehear, and redetermine a matter relating to prospective action where it has not lost jurisdiction by appeal or lapse of time.

5. The plea of res judicata operates as an estoppel and not as a deprivation of jurisdiction.

6. One is not entitled to an injunction against administrative action unless the administrative agency is acting beyond its jurisdiction or contrary to constitutional principles.

7. Where the commissioner of corrections proposes to hold a hearing on the fitness of the warden of the state prison to continue to occupy that position, the warden is not entitled to enjoin the hearing on an allegation that a prior informal conference between him and the commissioner disposed of the matter and rendered it res judicata, and the commissioner is entitled to a writ of prohibition to prohibit the district court from entertaining such a suit.

Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Sydney Berde, Deputy Atty. Gen., William E. Mullin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert W. Mattson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.

Goldie, Sigal & Cohen, W. E. G. Watson, Drake & Drake, Minneapolis, for respondents.

LOEVINGER, Justice.

This case arises on an application by the commissioner of corrections for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent district court from enjoining an administrative action by relator. Because of the procedural posture of the case, we must take the facts from the complaint of the respondent Douglas C. Rigg in the court below, subject, however, to the rules of construction applicable to pleadings. There has been no evidence offered to the court below or in the record before this court from which any findings of fact can be made. It is important to emphasize, therefore, that any statement in this opinion is merely a reflection of the allegations of the pleadings and is not an indication that there has been any showing or finding as to the facts.

Respondent Rigg is and has been for some time the chief executive officer, or 'warden,' of the Minnesota State Prison. Relator Will C. Turnbladh is the commissioner of corrections. The commissioner has general responsibility for and supervision of the Department of Corrections, which includes the prison. Minn.St. c. 243. On the night of August 25, 1960, the commissioner notified the warden to be present in the commissioner's office the following day to discuss a matter of alleged excessive requisitioning of food from the prison commissary for the warden and three employees under his direction.

The warden appeared at the commissioner's office on August 26, 1960, and talked in private to the commissioner during most of the day. This meeting is referred to in the complaint as a 'hearing'; but from the facts alleged it appears that there was simply a private discussion between the commissioner and the warden which lasted from about 9 o'clock in the morning until after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The commissioner and the warden then allegedly agreed informally that certain withdrawals of food from the prison commissary made and authorized by the warden were not illegal or dishonest but showed poor judgment, and that as discipline for said acts the warden should be suspended from his duties without pay for a period of 15 days and should repay to the state the amount of such withdrawals. This conclusion was apparently announced to various newspaper reporters and others at a news conference following the meeting between the commissioner and the warden.

Thereafter, on September 2, 1960, the commissioner served upon the warden a formal written 'Notice of Hearing and Order to Show Cause.' This notice stated that the warden was charged with misconduct as set out in an attached written 'Statement of Charges,' and that a hearing would be held thereon, pursuant to Minn.St. 246.02, subd. 1, as amended by § 243.02.

Before the date set for the hearing, the warden filed suit in Ramsey County District Court against the commissioner, alleging that in the conference between the commissioner and the warden the parties had arrived at a 'settlement and adjudication' of the charges against the warden, that the matter was therefore res judicata, and that the commissioner 'has been divested of jurisdiction over the person of the Warden with relation to such subject matter and over the subject matter of the proceedings.' The complaint prayed for a temporary and permanent injunction restraining the commissioner from in any manner interfering with the warden's enjoyment of his office. A temporary restraining order was issued by the district court to prevent the holding of the proposed hearing by the commissioner. Thereafter, the commissioner secured an alternative writ of prohibition from this court to prevent the district court from acting in the matter.

The pleadings of the warden herein and the material submitted in support of the pleadings, including affidavits and briefs, are exceedingly voluminous and contain many repetitious, hearsay, and irrelevant allegations, including insinuations and charges against officials not involved in this proceeding in any way. The pleadings also contain lengthy and repetitious assertions of the virtue and competence of the warden and of the propriety of his conduct. Since the only issue that is or could be presented either to the district court or to this court at this stage of the proceedings involves the jurisdiction of the commissioner to proceed, the merits of the controversy are not involved; and, therefore, these allegations are irrelevant to the present proceeding. Nothing that is said herein should be taken to suggest any view or conclusion as to the merits of the basic controversy.

The only question for the courts at this time is whether the commissioner has jurisdiction to determine that the warden shall or shall not be retained in the state service, or whether the commissioner has been deprived of such jurisdiction by the informal proceedings mentioned above. If the commissioner has jurisdiction, it is improper, under our decisions and under generally recognized principles of law, for the courts to interfere with the administrative proceeding prior to the making of such a determination.

The first issue that arises is whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable in the present proceeding at all. Although there is some authority to the effect that this doctrine does not apply to administrative proceedings, the sounder view appears to be that stated in 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 18.02, as follows:

'As a matter of principle, it is completely clear that the reasons behind the doctrine of res judicata as developed in the court system are fully applicable to Some administrative proceedings. * * * The sound view is therefore to use the doctrine of res judicata when the reasons for it are present in full force, to modify it when modification is needed, and to reject it when the reasons against it outweigh those in its favor.'

Rigg's entire theory as to the application of res judicata to the present proceedings is constructed on the basis of a sentence appearing in Minn.St. 15.0418 relating to the hearing of contested cases in administrative proceedings. After stating the requirements for notice, specification of issues, opportunity to be heard, preparation of a record, and other matters, this section contains the following provision:

'* * * Informal disposition may also be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default.'

In any rational view of what actually occurred, it does gross violence to common sense to assert that a private conference between a department head and a subordinate executive relating to the conduct of that department constitutes a 'hearing' in the sense that this term is used in statutes or decisions by lawyers familiar with legal procedure. It further does gross violence to common sense to assert that an announcement to newspaper reporters constitutes a 'stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default.' There are numerous opinions and statements by lawyers and judges decrying 'trial by newspaper.' It is significant in the present case that Rigg seeks to establish the alleged informal disposition of this matter by putting newspaper reports and the affidavit of a newspaper reporter before the court. It is no reflection on these publications or the reporters involved to say that it would be a travesty of legal process to accept newspaper reports of statements by public officials as the equivalent of a formal judgment or administrative adjudication.

However, even were the newspaper reports accepted as the equivalent of a formal administrative order, it is still clear that under the authorities this is not the kind of proceeding to which the doctrine of res judicata is properly applicable. As indicated in the quotation from Davis above, there is no authority anywhere to the effect that res judicata is applicable to All administrative proceedings regardless of their nature. The only authority for the application of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Salt Creek Freightways v. Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Commission
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1979
    ... ... No. 4960 ... Supreme Court of Wyoming ... Aug. 7, 1979 ... this appeal from a judgment of the district court of Natrona County, which affirmed an order ... Richardson, 4th Cir., 446 F.2d 1, 2 (1971); State v. District Court, 259 Minn. 228, 107 N.W.2d 307, ... an administrative agent is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact ... " ...         The second case, Colorado Springs Coach Company v. Civil ... ...
  • South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Ed. Association--South Bend
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 25, 1979
    ... ... No. 2-677 A 222 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District ... 2 ...         Judicial review of this decision was not sought ... filed a Verified Complaint in the Marion County Superior Court seeking a permanent injunction to ... action complained of is a "final order." State ex rel. Calumet National Bank of Hammond v ... 187, 216 A.2d 149; State ex rel. Turnbladh v. District Court (1960), 259 Minn. 228, 107 ... ...
  • State v. Randolph
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 20, 2011
    ... ... Walter Jamille RANDOLPH, Defendant, v. County of Rice, intervenor, Respondent, v. State Board ... No. A101557. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 20, 2011 ... [800 ... misdemeanant appellants, but the district court has inherent authority to appoint private ... and constitutional function of the judicial branch. State v. Chauvin, 723 N.W.2d 20, 26 ... See, e.g., Knox Cnty. Council v. State ex. rel. McCormick, 217 Ind. 493, 29 N.E.2d 405, 414 ... , we may unwittingly create a form of second-class representation in some cases); Simmons v ... ...
  • Joelson v. City of Casper, Wyo., 83-173
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1984
    ... ... No. 83-173 ... Supreme Court of Wyoming ... Feb. 3, 1984 ... since we will hold that neither the district court nor this court possesses jurisdiction to ... decision of an agency is entitled to judicial review. 1 This court has adopted Rule 12, ... Stagner v. Wyoming State Tax Commission, Wyo., 642 P.2d 1296 (1982); ... P.2d 365 (1972) and Town of Afton, Lincoln County v. Public Service Commission, Wyo., 471 P.2d 331 ... , 4th Cir., 446 F.2d 1, 2 (1971); State ex rel. Turnbladh v. District Court, 259 Minn. 228, 107 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT