Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Idaho v. Hodel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 9, 1987No. 84-4145Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partReinhardt, Circuit Judge

While I concur in the conclusion of the majority that the Coeur d’Alene Tribe is not entitled to forfeiture, I disagree strongly with part of the analysis it uses in reaching that conclusion. I also disagree strongly with the majority’s suggestions that we should defer automatically to the State of Idaho’s interpretation of the term “public park” and that Idaho’s Heyburn State Park leasing practice falls within the meaning of that term. I do not believe that leasing prime public land to those who can afford to maintain lakeside summer cottages, and excluding the general public from that…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Barr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Diamond v. ChakrabartySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (PR), Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. Perry v. Commerce Loan Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API