Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana

98 F.3d 1194, 1996 WL 625085

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 29, 1996·No. Nos. 95-35093, 95-35096·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The motion to recall the mandate is granted.

The petition for rehearing received on September 18,1996, is accepted for filing.

The opinion, 92 F.3d 826, is amended by adding to the end of footnote 2:

Montana also argues in its petition for rehearing that this case presents a weaker case for quasi-contractual relief than California, where restitution was denied, [1195]*1195because the Tribe did not transfer any resources to the State. But California involved an entirely different factual situation: a claim of restitution by the Government where the Government had voluntarily agreed to reimburse a contractor subject to a state tax. The Government, unlike the Tribe, was “in no better position than as a subrogee of its contractor,” id. at 752, 113 S.Ct. at 1788, and the Supreme Court held that “the Government cannot use the existence of an obligation to indemnify [a contractor] to create a federal cause of action for money had and received to recover state taxes paid by [the contractor].” Id. at 754, 113 S.Ct. at 1789.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The motion to recall the mandate is granted.

The petition for rehearing received on September 18,1996, is accepted for filing.

The opinion, 92 F.3d 826, is amended by adding to the end of footnote 2:

Montana also argues in its petition for rehearing that this case presents a weaker case for quasi-contractual relief than California, where restitution was denied, [1195]*1195because the Tribe did not transfer any resources to the State. But California involved an entirely different factual situation: a claim of restitution by the Government where the Government had voluntarily agreed to reimburse a contractor subject to a state tax. The Government, unlike the Tribe, was “in no better position than as a subrogee of its contractor,” id. at 752, 113 S.Ct. at 1788, and the Supreme Court held that “the Government cannot use the existence of an obligation to indemnify [a contractor] to create a federal cause of action for money had and received to recover state taxes paid by [the contractor].” Id. at 754, 113 S.Ct. at 1789.

Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana, 98 F.3d 1194, 1996 WL 625085 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

98 F.3d 1194 (Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

The Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, the Crow Tribe of Indians, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Montana, Director, Ken Nordtvedt County of Big Horn Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher

98 F.3d 1194 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Opinion

Related