Legal Opinion
United States v. Crookshanks
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided November 29, 1977No. CR 77-168 to CR 77-170PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
SKOPIL, Chief Judge.
These prosecutions for criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)) were commenced by orders to show cause why respondents should not be held in contempt for violation of an order of this court.
The order alleged to have been violated is a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) entered by Judge Belloni on August 23, 1977, in United States v. Oregon, Civil No. 68-513 (D.Or.). That action involves the rights of certain Treaty Indians to shares of fish resources in the Columbia River.
The TRO in question restrained the Columbia River Fishermen’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cooper v. AaronSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of TacomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. Eric HallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Nielsen v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- New Jersey v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
- United States v. State Of OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,533 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Walter Wencke Superior Motels, Inc. v. R. N. Gould and Securities and Exchange Commission, Receiver and Real Party in Interest AndCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- In re Indianapolis Downs, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.