Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Tinno

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1972No. 10737Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShepard, Justice

I concur in all of the majority opinion except the latter part thereof wherein the majority opinion makes the fishing regulation inapplicable to Indians. That regulation prohibited the taking of salmon from the spawning beds in the upper reaches of the Yankee Fork of the Salmon River. The majority opinion argues that the state should have offered a justification or explanation of the regulation. Numerous cases are cited for that proposition. I do not believe those cases are controlling in the case at bar.

The late case of Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington, 391 U.S. 392, 88…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Tulee v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Sohappy v. SmithDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1969
  4. Maison v. Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian ReservationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API