Automotive United Trades Organization v. State
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.
¶1 The plaintiff brought suit against Washington State and its officials, challenging the consti*220tutionality of disbursements the State gives to Indian tribes under fuel tax compacts. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to join indispensable parties — namely, the Indian tribes party to the agreements— under CR 19. We reverse.
¶2 We hold the tribes are not indispensable parties under CR 19(b). Although the tribes are necessary parties under CR 19(a) whose joinder is not feasible due to tribal sovereign immunity, equitable considerations allow this action to proceed in…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Worcester v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Group, LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Automotive United Trades Organization v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2015
- Riverview Community Group v. Spencer & LivingstonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Riverview Community Group v. Spencer & LivingstonWashington Supreme Court · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.