Legal Opinion
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Fish & Game Commission, Idaho
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 16, 1994No. 94-35280PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEEZER, Circuit Judge:
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes) challenge an order of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game) prohibiting all fishing for Spring Chinook Salmon during the summer of 1991 in an area of the Salmon River traditionally fished by the Tribes. The district court dismissed the action as moot and as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.
I
The Tribes constitute a single federally recognized Indian tribe residing on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho. Pursuant to Article 4…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Murphy v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Brandon v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkleSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Antoine v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Epileptic Foundation v. City and County of MauiDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2004
- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Fish & Game CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Public Utilities Commission of California v. Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- (PC) Mungia v. Sheriffe DepartmentDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Alan Amirault v. Dawn Rush, et al.District Court, D. Arizona · 2026
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.