Legal Opinion

Snohomish County v. Seattle Disposal Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1967No. 38550PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Finley, C. J. —

The defendant Seattle Disposal Company leased land known as Allotments 91 and 92 from the intervenor, the Tulalip Tribes, for the purpose of operating what is called a sanitary land-fill garbage and refuse disposal site. The lease was authorized by ordinance No. 29 passed by the Tulalip Tribes, an Indian group organized as a federal corporation pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 988, 25 U.S.C. § 477.

Allotment 91 was purchased in 1960 in the name of the United States in trust for the Tulalip Tribes. The Tulalip Tribes purchased Allotment 92 at a Snohomish County…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. County of AlleghenySupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Squire v. CapoemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. La Motte v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Robert C. Kirkwood, Controller of the State of California v. Lee Arenas, Richard Brown Arenas and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
  2. Atkinson v. HaldaneAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Sheppard v. SheppardIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State Ex Rel. May v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of OklahomaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
  5. Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San DiegoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1971

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API