Legal Opinion

United States v. Oregon

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided October 7, 1988No. Civ. No. 68-513-MAPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED OPINION

(Intervention)

MARSH, District Judge.

The Makah Indian Tribe (hereinafter “Makah Tribe”) moves to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and alternatively seeks permissive intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). While its motion to intervene appears to be for the sole purpose of submitting opposition to the pending motion for an order approving the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, the Makah Tribe at oral argument conceded that it wished to intervene as a party for all purposes. The parties moving for an order approving the 1988 Columbia River…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Sohappy v. SmithDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1969
  3. The County of Fresno v. Cecil D. Andrus, National Land for People, Inc., Applicant for Intervention-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
  4. United States v. OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  5. United States v. OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. OregonDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1992
  2. United States v. State of Or.District Court, D. Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API