United States v. Washington
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER
ZILLY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff United States brings this action in its own right and on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor Lummi Indian Nation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), seeking a declaration that the Treaty of Point Elliott impliedly reserved the. groundwater under the Lum-mi Peninsula for the use and benefit of the Lummi Nation. Defendant State of Washington, Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) issues permits to withdraw groundwater on the Lummi Peninsula, and contends that the Treaty of Point Elliott does not impliedly reserve groundwater under the Lummi Peninsula…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian ReservationSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2005