STATE v SHOOK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 is error Thls stdtelucnt \\as ~nirde based on the brlcfing by the State and the Confederated 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 IC~Z~ Reservation (Tribes or Indians). TXe Tribes also seek /I ~ L ' I - I P I L ~ ~irg~11cti(it? prohibitiirg file StiitrJI-cinzenforcirrg its hunting /xtrcifklzing regilluiions or?the Resen~ntion. [Emphasis added.] of Further. as the State and the Tribes agree. that litigation is stayed pending the durat~on the 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 Statc to diseontini~c prohibition on the Flathead Rcscrvaiion agaii-1st big game huintii~g the by 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, '\.L tP' liday of February. 2003 1 I>.-iTF.D this 13d 1 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
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.
