Legal Opinion

United States v. Aam

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 2, 1989No. Nos. 88-3594, 88-3549PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SKOPIL, Circuit Judge:

We are asked in these consolidated appeals to determine whether the Port Madison Indian Reservation in Washington includes adjacent tidelands. The Suquamish Indian tribe, joined by the United States, argues that the tidelands were reserved by treaty for the tribe’s exclusive use. The state of Washington and private landowners contend that the tidelands were never part of the reservation and therefore title to the tidelands passed to the state on admission to the union in 1889 pursuant to the “equal footing doctrine.” Non-Indians now hold record title to a substantial…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. United States v. Holt State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. IdahoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. United States v. WashingtonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1993
  3. United States v. IdahoDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1998
  4. Coeur D'alene Tribe Of Idaho v. State Of IdahoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  5. United States v. StateDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1994

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

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

Powered by the Exa API