In re the Petition to Transfer Territory from Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to Froid Elementary School District No. 65

In re Petition to Transfer Territory from Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to Froid Elementary School District No. 65, 2015 MT 278 (2015) · Supreme Court of the State of Montana · September 17, 2015 · No. DA 14-0776

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded a district court order granting Poplar Elementary School District a new hearing on Froid Elementary School District's petition to transfer territory. The Court held that Poplar failed to preserve its statutory argument concerning unsworn testimony and that plain-error review was unwarranted. A dissent would have affirmed on the ground that the county superintendent lacked authority to appoint a deputy to hear and decide the petition.

Holdings

  1. The Montana Administrative Procedure Act does not govern proceedings before a county superintendent because county superintendents are local government officials and actions of a unit of local government are excluded from MAPA's definition of an agency.
  2. Poplar failed to preserve its statutory claim because it did not object to the hearing procedure or the receipt of unsworn statements before, during, or after the administrative hearing.
  3. Poplar's unpreserved statutory claim did not warrant plain-error review because the record showed no manifest miscarriage of justice, fundamental unfairness, or threat to the integrity of the judicial process.
  4. The district court erred by deciding whether the statute required sworn testimony without first determining whether Poplar preserved the issue and, if not, whether plain-error review was warranted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred by holding that the county superintendent abused his discretion by receiving unsworn statements at the territory-transfer hearing.
  2. Whether the territory-transfer proceeding was governed by the Montana Administrative Procedure Act or the common law for purposes of issue preservation.
  3. Whether Poplar's unpreserved statutory claim concerning sworn testimony warranted plain-error review.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (18)

  • Credit Service Co., Inc. v. Crasco, 2011 MT 211, ¶ 11, 361 Mont. 487, 264 P.3d 1061(followed)
  • In re Petition to Transfer From Dutton, 2011 MT 152, ¶ 7, 361 Mont. 103, 259 P.3d 751(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Guffin, 2010 MT 100, ¶ 20, 356 Mont. 218, 232 P.3d 888(followed)
  • Silva v. City of Columbia Falls, 258 Mont. 329, 335, 852 P.2d 671, 675 (1993)(followed)
  • Hunt v. K-Mart Corp., 1999 MT 125, ¶ 10, 294 Mont. 444, 981 P.2d 275(followed)
  • Hulse v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Division, 1998 MT 108, ¶ 46, 289 Mont. 1, 961 P.2d 75(followed)
  • McDermott v. Carie, 2005 MT 293, ¶ 24, 329 Mont. 295, 124 P.3d 168(followed)
  • State v. Lacey, 2009 MT 62, ¶ 22, 349 Mont. 371, 204 P.3d 1192(followed)
  • In re T.E., 2002 MT 195, ¶ 20, 311 Mont. 148, 54 P.3d 38(followed)
  • In re D.H., 2001 MT 200, ¶ 41, 306 Mont. 278, 33 P.3d 616(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…