Eyak Native Village Chanega Native Village Nanwalek Native Village Port Graham Native Village Tatitlek Native Village v. William M. Daley Donald Evans

375 F.3d 1218, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14267, 2004 WL 1588113
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 12, 2004·No. 02-36155·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The district court decided the federal paramountcy question and thereby avoided determining the existence or extent of the plaintiff villages’ claimed aboriginal rights. As an appellate body, we would be greatly assisted by an initial determination by the district court of what aboriginal rights, if any, the villages have. We therefore VACATE the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants. We REMAND with instructions that the district court decide what aboriginal rights to fish beyond'the three-mile limit, if any, the plaintiffs have. For purposes of this limited remand, the district court should assume that the villages’ aboriginal rights, if any, have not been abrogated by the federal paramountcy doctrine or other federal law.

The en banc panel retains jurisdiction over all future proceedings in this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eyak Native Village Chanega Native Village Nanwalek Native Village Port Graham Native Village Tatitlek Native Village v. William M. Daley Donald Evans, 375 F.3d 1218, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14267, 2004 WL 1588113 (9th Cir. 2004).

375 F.3d 1218 (Eyak Native Village Chanega Native Village Nanwalek Native Village Port Graham Native Village Tatitlek Native Village v. William M. Daley Donald Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta
Ninth Circuit, 2025
United States v. Sundeep Dharni
757 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Native Village of Eyak v. Gary Locke
688 F.3d 619 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Northern Mariana Islands v. United States
399 F.3d 1057 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
CNMI v. United States
399 F.3d 1057 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)