Hale

Hale v. Norton

Good Law
461 F.3d 1092
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 200603-36032California2,239 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

ORDER

This court’s opinion filed on February 9, 2006, and published at 437 F.3d 892 (9th Cir.2006), is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion.

With the filing of this new opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny Appellants’ petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Goodwin and Brunetti so recommend. The full court has been advised of. the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. Appellants’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed March 24, 2006, are DENIED.

OPINION

In 2002, plaintiffs-appellants (collectively, “the Hales”) purchased 410 acres of land near McCarthy, Alaska. Their property is completely surrounded by the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve (the “Park”), which was created in 1980. The Hales gain access to their property over what used to be the thirteen-mile McCarthy-Green Butte Road (the “MGB road”). In 1938, the Alaska Road Commission listed the MGB road as “abandoned.” All of its bridges have washed away, and the effects of vegetation and erosion have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.