Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Citation: Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Parent Document: Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Jurisdiction: Montana (state)
Effective Date: 2008-12-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888205/denke-v-shoemaker/ ↗

Full Text

1,272 chars

¶45 The City disagrees and, also relying on Bechard, presents an argument that “the decision to use a larger building to accommodate greater attendance and the decision to allow and not restrict public comment” were immune legislative acts. Wholly aside from this immunity argument, however, the City also renews its free speech and statutory privilege defenses. Specifically, the City argues that it cannot be held liable for statements made during the February 14 council meeting because those statements were privileged under § 27-1-804, MCA, and were protected by the constitutional free speech principles articulated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964). Along these same lines, the City also contends that it could not lawfully have regulated what was said at the meeting. These arguments appear to be offered as alternative grounds for concluding that the City cannot be held liable to Denke for its conduct of the meeting and, therefore, for upholding the District Court’s order denying her petition for judicial review. See e.g. Peterson v. Eichhorn, 2008 MT 250, ¶ 21, 344 Mont. 540, ¶ 21, 189 P.3d 615, ¶ 21 (“We uphold a district court’s judgment if the court reaches the correct result, regardless of the court’s reasoning.”).

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text