Legal Opinion
Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided April 11, 2017No. CASE NO. C17-0219-JCCPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE
John C. Coughenour, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on 271 Nooksack Tribal Members’2 motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 14). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) decisions not to recognize any actions taken by the Nooksack Indian Tribal Council after March 24, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Reynolds v. DormireCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
- Donnelly v. GlickmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sullivan v. FergusonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022