Case ends after 26 years

July 15, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
After more than a quarter century, a judge out in Montana finally ruled on a dispute over the ownership of natural gas leases.

It didn’t take 26 years for a resolution in the case because of countless appeals or court delays.

It was because the judge misplaced the file.

According to a few news sources and blogs about this case, retired District Judge Ronald McPhillips presided over Ayers v. Rubow in the early 1980s and apparently recently found the file in an old briefcase at home.

The judge retired after the case was submitted because of health reasons, which is the suspected reason for the extreme delay.

In a case that Ayers argued was potentially worth millions of dollars, how do you let a quarter century pass before the case is finally ruled on?

The attorney for Ayers said he finally gave up on it because he felt it was going nowhere. Judge McPhillips came out of retirement to make the ruling and decided Ayers didn’t prove his case.

If I filed a lawsuit in which I may be entitled to millions of dollars, you bet I’m going to stick with it, call the clerk’s office, my attorney, and anyone else I could to make sure it was moving through the system.

How did this not come to the judge’s attention sooner or any of the judges who took Judge McPhillips’ place in District Court? Why didn’t Ayers or the defendant file any grievances or seek help looking into the matter?

This is a pretty extreme delay in a case getting resolved, but these kinds of things happen in many courts. The misplacement of a file in a Marion County court was one of the reasons a Marion Superior judge was suspended without pay earlier this year. The missing file was in the case of a man wrongly convicted of rape.

Lessons to learn from this case: Keep better track of your case files and take meticulous notes. Judge McPhillips did, which allowed him to rule on the case after the Montana Supreme Court allowed him to do so. Also, follow up with the court and your attorney so you don’t have to wait 26 years for a resolution on your suit.

There’s no word on whether Ayers plans to appeal the ruling.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • What likely happened, in my estimation, is that the case settled out of court and nobody bothered to file a stipulation of dismissal. Hence, no parties to the litigation cared that no ruling was handed down, since they had already settled. If no stipulation of dismissal is filed with the court, court staff is unlikely to notice that the file is missing.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT