James Barlow Family Ltd. Partnership v. David M. Munson, Inc., 96-1202

• Decision Date: 15 December 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1202,96-1202
• Citation: 132 F.3d 1316
• Parties: JAMES BARLOW FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; John and Lois Haun Family Partnership; Barlow & Haun, Inc.; L.A. McPeek and Company; Barbara B. Crews; B.J. Bradshaw Estate, by First Interstate Bank of Utah, Trustee; Alpha Exploration, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID M. MUNSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Amicus Curiae.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1316

132 F.3d 1316

JAMES BARLOW FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; John and Lois Haun

Family Partnership; Barlow & Haun, Inc.; L.A. McPeek and

Company; Barbara B. Crews; B.J. Bradshaw Estate, by First

Interstate Bank of Utah, Trustee; Alpha Exploration, Inc.;

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID M. MUNSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Amicus Curiae.

No. 96-1202.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1997.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, and HENRY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Barlows have filed a motion to clarify our order and opinion on rehearing. Because our mandate issued on November 21, 1997, we treat the motion as one to recall the mandate. Under our inherent authority to recall the mandate for the purpose of clarifying an ambiguous prior order of the court, see Coleman v. Turpen, 827 F.2d 667, 671 (10th Cir.1987); Dilley v. Alexander, 627 F.2d 407, 410-411 (D.C.Cir.1980), we grant the motion and recall the mandate.

We clarify the opinion by eliminating the phrase on page 3 stating that we grant summary judgment in favor of Munson and by stating instead that we remand the matter for further consideration. In addition, on the last page we eliminate the phrase "and Munson thus has a complete defense to the nonpayment of royalties to the Barrows."