Case Name: The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Director, Ken Nordtvedt; County of Big Horn; Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, Defendants-Appellees; The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff, 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, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1996-10-29
Citations: 98 F.3d 1194
Docket Number: Nos. 95-35093, 95-35096
Parties: The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Director, Ken Nordtvedt; County of Big Horn; Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, Defendants-Appellees. The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff, 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, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BROWNING, WRIGHT, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 98
Pages: 1194–1195

Head Matter:
The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Director, Ken Nordtvedt; County of Big Horn; Treasurer, Big Horn County, Martha Fletcher, Defendants-Appellees. The CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiff, 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, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 95-35093, 95-35096.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1996.
Before: BROWNING, WRIGHT, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

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, because 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.