MONTANORE MINERALS CORP. V. ARNOLD BAKIE, No. 15-35707 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 16, 2017.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MONTANORE MINERALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNOLD BAKIE; OPTIMA, INC.; FRANK DUVAL, Defendants-Appellants, and EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNDER, THROUGH AND ACROSS THOSE CERTAIN UNPATENTED LODE MINING CLAIMS LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA AND IDENTIFIED AS POPS 12, POPS 13, POPS 14 AND POPS 15; UNKNOWN OWNERS, and all other persons, unknown, claiming or who might claim any right, title, estate, or interest in or lien or encumbrance the unpatented lode mining claims described above or any cloud upon title thereto, whether such claim or possible claim be present, Defendants. Nos. 15-35707 15-35753 D.C. No. 9:13-cv-00133DLC ORDER 2 MONTANORE MINERALS V. BAKIE Filed October 18, 2017 Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., and MORGAN CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. ORDER The opinion, filed on August 16, 2017, is amended as follows: On page 15, line 13, a footnote is added following <§ 70-30-304(1),> which reads: <Unless a jury is expressly waived, MCA Section 70-30-304(1) provides that appeals from the compensation decision in this type of action shall be heard by a jury. The district court acknowledged this provision, but ruled: “Regardless of whether the Defendants choose to appeal this order and seek a trial by jury, the Court has concluded that judgment should be entered in favor of Montanore at this time, thereby obviating the need for a jury trial in this Court.”>. With the foregoing amendment, Appellee and CrossAppellant Montanore Minerals Corporations’s petition for panel rehearing, filed August 30, 2017, is DENIED. Judge M. Smith and Judge Christen vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge D.W. Nelson so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc, filed the same date, is DENIED. No future petitions shall be entertained.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
