Plaintiff and Rcspondent,
t.
'
SANDRA \Vtii"fE SI-fC)OK,
Defendant and .4ppellant.
Before (Ills Courz I S Sandra Shook's Petrtlon for Rehearing. We find no grounds
under Rule 33, Y1.R.zApp.P.. titr granting the rehearing. !towever, in its responsc to the
petition, the State raised an issue regarding our Opinion in Starc v. Sl~oolt,
2002 M?' 347,3 13
k4ont. 337, P.3d : which we address here. Thz last seiltciice of 71 23 in ,S'hook reads:
"'rhereforc, in the case oi'the Flathead Rescrvatron, the regulatron at issue here is specifically
required by that agreeme~lt."The State asserts that this statement is enor. T'he State also
points out that the statement IS diet~~m
\Ye agree that the statement IS drcturn. llowccer, me do not agree that the statement
based on the brlcfing by the State and the Confederated
is error Thls stdtelucnt \\as ~nirde
Saiish KL lcootenai Tribes (the Tribes) and based on thc opinion issued in federal district
First, i n the federal litigation, the court clearly stated that the Tribes were contesting
jurisdiclii?n over aii hunting and fishing on tihe reservation. The opinion slates:
Plaint Elthe 'l'ribes] fiied this suit seeking declaratory-judglncnr that tl:e State
of Montana (State) has no autilority to regiilate hunting and fishing on rlic
Flathead Indian Reservarioit (Reser-vation!, and that regulation ofhunting and
fishing within the exterior boundaries of t!?e Rescr;atio:~ is cxclusir-el:; 1;ested
in the confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian
Reservation (Tribes or Indians). TXe Tribes also seek /I ~ L ' I - I P I L ~ ~irg~11cti(it?
IC~Z~
prohibitiirg file StiitrJI-cinzenforcirrg its hunting /xtrcifklzing regilluiions or?the
Resen~ntion. [Emphasis added.]
Further. as the State and the Tribes agree. that litigation is stayed pending the durat~on the
of
settlement agreement between the State and the Tribes, See Order, CV 90-49-M-CCL (Slay
8, 1991). Finally, the State stated in its br~efing Shook that the Issues in\ol.ved in the
in
fcderal case were "settled by a bird hunting and fishing agreement, and by a conti~lttatio~i
of
thls prior regulat~on
prohrb~ttng
~lonlneinbers
from b ~ game hunting there." Therefore, the
g
last sentence of 1 28 quoted abol e nterely refers to the State's representation that \\ere the
1
by
Statc to diseontini~c prohibition on the Flathead Rcscrvaiion agaii-1st big game huintii~g
the
non-tribal members, the Sede~al
stay would no longer be in effect.
Houevcr. because the last sentence of 1 28 is dictum and is not intended to bind any
Suture interpretations regarding the issue of jurisdiction over hunting and fishing on the
Flathead Reserbatton, we hereby arncnd the Shook Op~nion delete the last sentence f io~n
to
71 28 in its entirety. Accordingly,
1'1' IS ORDERED that thc last sciltcnce of'l28 of .Sfcite v. Sliook, 2002 &font. 337,3 13
Mont. 347, -P.2d , is deleted in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's Petition for Rehearing filed with this
C'oilrr i s DENIED.
lT IS FCRTHEK ORIPEKED that the Clerk of this Coul-t give notice oi'this Order' to
ail recipients of our Opinion in Stlire i;. .Yhook, 2002 Mant. 347,? 13 P~loria.
347, 13d
'\.L
liday of February. 2003
1
1 tP'
I>.-iTF.D this
Justices
Jtrstice Terry K. Trieweilcr would deny the Petition for Rehearing without revising
the Court's Opinion
+-.;
DATED this ,,\,,I: 1003
day o f February