United States v. Washington

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Washington

496 F.2d 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1793

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 620 (United States v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Washington, 496 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents for decision, a contention under which the appellee challenges the continued existence of the Puyallup Indian Reservation¹ and, as a consequence, the right of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians to fish, free from state interference, on that part of the Puyallup River lying within the Reservation. This is a federal question, Satiacum v. Washington, 414 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 209, 38 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); which was left open in Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 394, n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689 (1968), and Moses v. Kinnear, 490 F.2d 21, 27-28 (CA 9 1974).

After a careful study, we can find no meaningful distinction between the Cushman Act, the Act of April 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 565, and its predecessor, the Act of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 612, 633, the legislation upon which appellee relies, and the Act of June 17, 1892, 27 Stat. 52, construed by The Supreme Court in Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973).² Nor can we discern a significant variance between the historical background, including the continuing congressional and agency recognition, of the Klamath River Reservation involved in Mattz and the historical background and continuing recognition [621]*621of the questioned Puyallup Reservation. For that matter, the historical background and continuing congressional and agency recognition of the Puyallups would appear to be substantially more impressive than that of the Klamaths. Consequently, we have no alternative other than to hold that the rationale of Mattz is controlling and that the Puyallup Indian Reservation continues to exist.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings in conformity herewith, including the entry of an appropriate decree. •

It is so ordered.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents for decision, a contention under which the appellee challenges the continued existence of the Puyallup Indian Reservation¹ and, as a consequence, the right of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians to fish, free from state interference, on that part of the Puyallup River lying within the Reservation. This is a federal question, Satiacum v. Washington, 414 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 209, 38 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); which was left open in Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 394, n. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1725, 20 L.Ed.2d 689 (1968), and Moses v. Kinnear, 490 F.2d 21, 27-28 (CA 9 1974).

After a careful study, we can find no meaningful distinction between the Cushman Act, the Act of April 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 565, and its predecessor, the Act of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 612, 633, the legislation upon which appellee relies, and the Act of June 17, 1892, 27 Stat. 52, construed by The Supreme Court in Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973).² Nor can we discern a significant variance between the historical background, including the continuing congressional and agency recognition, of the Klamath River Reservation involved in Mattz and the historical background and continuing recognition [621]*621of the questioned Puyallup Reservation. For that matter, the historical background and continuing congressional and agency recognition of the Puyallups would appear to be substantially more impressive than that of the Klamaths. Consequently, we have no alternative other than to hold that the rationale of Mattz is controlling and that the Puyallup Indian Reservation continues to exist.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings in conformity herewith, including the entry of an appropriate decree. •

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-washington-ca9-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack