State ex rel. Buttrey Foods, Inc. v. District Court

Montana Supreme Court

State ex rel. Buttrey Foods, Inc. v. District Court

443 P.2d 890, 151 Mont. 385, 1968 Mont. LEXIS 327

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 12, 1968

DocketNo. 11502

StatusPublished

This text of 443 P.2d 890 (State ex rel. Buttrey Foods, Inc. v. District Court) 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.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Buttrey Foods, Inc. v. District Court, 443 P.2d 890, 151 Mont. 385, 1968 Mont. LEXIS 327 (Mo. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On May 28, 1968, relator applied to this Court by petition for an appropriate supervisory writ to require respondents to [386]*386annul, set aside and vacate an order dated April 25, 1968. winch order denied a motion to vacate a previous order and reinstate judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant, Buttrey Foods, Inc., in case numbered 31941, entitled Matteucci’s Supei Save Drug, a Montana Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Hustad Corporation, a Montana Corporation; Buttrey Foods, Inc., a Corporation, Defendants, pending in the district court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, and also to require respondents to annul, set aside and vacate an order dated December 18, 1967, and, further, to reinstate in full as a final judgment one made and entered on October 9, 1967.

Following ex parte presentation of the petition this Court issued an alternative order to show cause, directed to respondents, requiring service thereof to be made upon respondent district court and judge, as well as counsel for the other parties in said previously mentioned civil action, and staying further proceedings therein.

The matter came on for hearing before the Court on July 1, 1968; at the conclusion of the hearing relator was granted to July 10, 1968, to file reply brief, at which time the matter would be taken under advisement.

The Court now being advised in the premises, is of the opinion that adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to relator and that such relator will not be irreparably injured and damaged by going to trial; further, that no emergency here exists which requires the exercise of the power of supervisory control by this Court.

It is therefore ordered that the alternative order to show cause be quashed, the stay order therein contained is rescinded, and the relief sought in this matter is denied and the proceeding is ordered dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

On May 28, 1968, relator applied to this Court by petition for an appropriate supervisory writ to require respondents to [386]*386annul, set aside and vacate an order dated April 25, 1968. winch order denied a motion to vacate a previous order and reinstate judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant, Buttrey Foods, Inc., in case numbered 31941, entitled Matteucci’s Supei Save Drug, a Montana Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Hustad Corporation, a Montana Corporation; Buttrey Foods, Inc., a Corporation, Defendants, pending in the district court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Lewis and Clark, and also to require respondents to annul, set aside and vacate an order dated December 18, 1967, and, further, to reinstate in full as a final judgment one made and entered on October 9, 1967.

Following ex parte presentation of the petition this Court issued an alternative order to show cause, directed to respondents, requiring service thereof to be made upon respondent district court and judge, as well as counsel for the other parties in said previously mentioned civil action, and staying further proceedings therein.

The matter came on for hearing before the Court on July 1, 1968; at the conclusion of the hearing relator was granted to July 10, 1968, to file reply brief, at which time the matter would be taken under advisement.

The Court now being advised in the premises, is of the opinion that adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is available to relator and that such relator will not be irreparably injured and damaged by going to trial; further, that no emergency here exists which requires the exercise of the power of supervisory control by this Court.

It is therefore ordered that the alternative order to show cause be quashed, the stay order therein contained is rescinded, and the relief sought in this matter is denied and the proceeding is ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 P.2d 890, 151 Mont. 385, 1968 Mont. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-buttrey-foods-inc-v-district-court-mont-1968.