Legal Opinion
Union Pacific Railroad v. Runyon
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided March 8, 2017No. Case No. 3:17-cv-00038-AAPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
AIKEN, Judge
The Confederated Tribes of the: (1) Uma-tilla Indian Reservation; (2) Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and (3) Bands of the Yakima Nation (collectively the “Treaty Tribes”), move the Court for an order dismissing plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad’s (“UPRR”) Complaint (doc. 1) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join them as necessary parties to the action as required by Rule 19. Treaty Tribes’ Joint Mot. Dismiss (doc. 28) 2. For the following reasons, the Treaty Tribes’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an interstate railroad…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Seminole Nation v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Conner v. BurfordCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Makah Indian Tribe v. C. William VerityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rediger v. Country Mutual Insurance Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 2017
- Canadian St. Regis v. State of New YorkDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2022