Rames, Inc. v. 11th Judicial District
This text of Rames, Inc. v. 11th Judicial District (Rames, Inc. v. 11th Judicial District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
QRIGINAL 08/16/2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: OP 22-0443
OP 22-0443
RAMES, INC. FORMERLY d/b/a CENTRAL INS. AGENCY, AUG 1 6 2022 Bowen Greenwooa Petitioner, Clerk of Supreme Court State. rlf RtInntarla
v. ORDER MONTANA ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FLATHEAD COUNTY HONORABLE ROBERT B. ALLISON, Presiding,
Respondent.
Petitioner Rames, Inc., seeks a writ of supervisory control over the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in its Cause No. DV-15-2020-521. Rames, Inc., alleges that the court erred in its rulings in the court's February 28, 2022 Order Re: Summary Judgment, April 26, 2022 Order Re: Rernaining Issues, and August 9, 2022 Order Regarding Witnesses and New Defense. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or ernergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Consistent with Rule 14(3), it is the Court's practice to refrain from exercising supervisory control when the petitioner has an adequate rernedy of appeal. E.g., Buckles v. Seventh Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0517, 386 Mont. 393, 386 P.3d 545 (table) (Oct. 18, 2016); Lichte v. Mont. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, No. OP 16-0482, 385 Mont. 540, 382 P.3d 868 (table) (Aug. 24, 2016). Rames, Inc., offers no argument as to why the normal appeal process would be inadequate in this case. It thus has not met the threshold requirements for consideration of a petition for writ of supervisory control under M. R. App. P. 14(3). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, Cause No. DV-15-2020-521, and the Honorable Robert B. Allison, presiding. „41--• DATED this I-40. day of August, 2022.
Chief Justice
194 AI J ut_ Justices
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rames, Inc. v. 11th Judicial District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rames-inc-v-11th-judicial-district-mont-2022.