Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation v. State of Washington
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
The Yakimas argue before this court en banc that PL-280 did not authorize Washington to assume partial jurisdiction and that Rev.Code Wash. § 37.12.010 is accordingly invalid.
We must first decide whether the Supreme Court’s summary dismissals in Tonasket v. Washington, 420 U.S. 915, 95 S.Ct. 1108, 43 L.Ed.2d 387 (1975) and Makah Indian Tribe v. Washington, 397 U.S. 316, 90 S.Ct. 1115, 25 L.Ed.2d 335 (1970) foreclose the issue. We can dispose of Tonasket quickly because the Supreme Court of Washington did not address the partial assumption question (as it did the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Quinault Tribe of Indians v. GallagherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Hall v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Makah Indian Tribe v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian NationSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Lawrence R. Fry and Nellie R. Fry, Husband and Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation v. WashingtonDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1978
- The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. The State of Oklahoma, Ex Rel. Davis Moss, District Attorney of Tulsa CountyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- Thomsen v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.