Legal Opinion
United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 13, 2000No. 99-35960PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:
This appeal concerns the limits of the Muckleshoot Tribe’s saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area under the Boldt Decision. Because we agree with the district court that the Muckleshoot’s saltwater usual and accustomed fishing area, as found by Judge Boldt, was limited to Elliott Bay, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the Puyallup, Suquamish, and Swinomish Tribes.
Background and Procedural History
This case centers on the interpretation of a lengthy and detailed district court opinion published in 1974 after an extensive trial involving a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Van Cauwenberghe v. BiardSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1974
- Colacurcio v. City of KentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Children's Hospital and Health Center, a Washington Corporation v. S. Kimberly Belshe, Director, California Department of Health ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Adel Hamad v. Robert GatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2013
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian TribeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Gobin v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.