State Ex Rel. Matson v. O'Hern

There is much in the majority opinion concerning which I find it unnecessary for me to express either approval or' disapproval. On at least some questions I think the majority are in error. It is now settled by the decisions of this court that when the removal of an officer is sought “for cause” there must be notice and hearing. (State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 Pac. (2d) 995, 99 A. L. R. 321; State ex rel. Holt v. District Court, 103 Mont. 438, 63 Pac. (2d) 1026, 1028.) “For cause” means “for reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient warrant for…