Case Name: Elaine R. MANGINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Defendant, and Dick Gottsegen, dba Timberline Adventures, aka Timberline Bicycle Tours, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-10
Citations: 319 F.3d 1079
Docket Number: No. 01-35273
Parties: Elaine R. MANGINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Defendant, and Dick Gottsegen, dba Timberline Adventures, aka Timberline Bicycle Tours, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 319
Pages: 1079–1080

Head Matter:
Elaine R. MANGINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Defendant, and Dick Gottsegen, dba Timberline Adventures, aka Timberline Bicycle Tours, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-35273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2002.
Filed Jan. 9, 2003.
Amended Feb. 10, 2003.
Sue Ann Love, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for the defendant-appellant.
Francis X. Clinch, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for the defendant-appellant.
Joseph P. Cosgrove, Hoyt & Blewett, Great Falls, MT, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Before: TROTT, NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The Opinion filed January 9, 2003, is amended as follows:
At Slip Opinion page 227, line 33: delete footnote 2, and replace with a new footnote 2 stating, "Because of the additional evidence that has come to light, we need not consider whether we would reach a different result were we reviewing Judge Malloy's decision on the record before him."
At Slip Opinion page 227, line 25 [after sentence "We also note that the record of Jackson's contacts with the expert is incomplete . "]: add the following sentence, "As the record stands, we find no direct evidence of an intent to deceive Judge Molloy, but nevertheless, Jackson clearly acted as a lawyer in the proceeding and Hoyt & Blewett failed to disclose all the relevant facts."
With these amendments to the Opinion, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellee's petition for a rehearing.