(Download) "Burgess v. State" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Burgess v. State
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 11, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
Submitted on Briefs April 6, 1989 This appeal concerns the forfeiture of a bond posted by appellant Burgess for the alleged
violation of game laws. Burgess first litigated the forfeiture in the Justice Court and then the District Court of the Fourteenth
Judicial District, County of Meagher. Burgess never appealed this decision. The further presentation of the issue was in a
subsequent action before the District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis & Clark County. The First Judicial
District Court held that res judicata barred the claim made by Burgess. This is the decision on appeal We affirm The citation
against Burgess charged him with possessing more than the legal limit of elk. Burgess posted and forfeited a $700 bond by
failing to appear as required by the citation. Close to a year later, Burgess moved the Justice Court to declare the forfeiture
unconstitutional because forfeited bonds from citations for game violations partially fund the game warden's retirement account.
See § 19-8-504, MCA. The Justice Court denied the motion, and Burgess appealed to the District Court. The District
Court affirmed the decision of the Justice Court Burgess never appealed this decision The current action was brought by Burgess,
acting pro se, to once again test the constitutionality of § 19-8-504, MCA. The State moved to dismiss based on
res judicata. The District Court of the First Judicial District denied the motion. However, shortly thereafter the District
Court granted the State's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata Burgess presents one issue: Should the action
brought to determine the constitutionality of § 19-8-504, MCA, be dismissed due to the doctrine of res judicata? Burgess argues initially that the First Judicial District Court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because
its denial of the State's motion to dismiss on the issue of res judicata bound the lower court as the law of the case. This
argument fails because the order denying the motion to dismiss was interlocutory, and interlocutory orders can be changed
without violating the law of the case doctrine. See 56 Am.Jur.2d Motions, Rules, and Orders § 42 (2d Ed. 1971) The
second argument by Burgess goes to the requirements for finding that a claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata Burgess
contends that the issues in this action are different from the issues previously litigated. According to Burgess, in the first
action he claimed only that the statute at issue violated the federal constitution. Here, a different issue appears, Burgess
contends, because he is claiming that the statute violates the state constitution. Burgess also claims that because he is
plaintiff here and the State is defendant, and previously he was defendant, and the State was plaintiff, the parties are not
the same The first contention by Burgess on res judicata fails because: