Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Coastal zone management (3)
- Salmon (3)
- Contracts (2)
- Habitat restoration (2)
- Oil spills (2)
-
- Public trust doctrine (2)
- Timber (2)
- 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942) (1)
- Administrative Procedures Act (1)
- Convention on Biological Diversity (1)
- Deep sea thermal vents (1)
- Deepwater Horizon (1)
- Energy development (1)
- Environmental disasters (1)
- Exxon Valdez (1)
- Federal Indian law (1)
- Federal lands (1)
- Indian law (1)
- International rivers (1)
- Lakes (1)
- Land use law (1)
- Native American lawyer (1)
- Natural resources (1)
- Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (1)
- Outer continental shelf (1)
- Pacific herring (1)
- Sovereignty (1)
- Streams (1)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Tribal rights (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (23)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975)) (18)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 96-35014, 96-35082, 96-35142, 96-35196, 96-35200, 96-35223 (135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998)) (17)
- Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976)) (14)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, Docket Nos. 77-983, 78-119, 78-139 (443 U.S. 658 (1979)) (13)
-
- Washington v. United States, Puget Sound Shellfish Growers v. United States, Alexander v. United States, 26 Tideland and Upland Private Property Owners v. United States, Docket Nos. 98-1028, 98-1026, 98-1039, 98-1052 (526 U.S. 1060 (1999)) (11)
- United States v. Baker, Docket Nos. 80-1085, 80-1086, 80-1088, 80-1116, 80-1117, 80-1118, 80-1206, 80-1219, 80-1208, 80-1205, 80-1214 (641 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1981)) (9)
- Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, Docket No. 44401 (88 Wash. 2d 677 (June 9, 1976)) (8)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009)) (8)
- Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967)) (7)
- Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. United States District Court, Docket Nos. 77-3129, 77-3208, 77-3209, 77-3654, 77-3655 (605 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1979)) (7)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No.95-35202 (98 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1996)) (7)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 95-35442, 95-35446 (86 F.3d 1499 (9th Cir. 1996)) (7)
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010)) (7)
- Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 43736 (86 Wash 2d. 664 (April 8, 1976)) (6)
- United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, Docket No. 98-35964 (235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 81-3111 (694 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1982)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. Nos. 79-4447, 79-4472 (641 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1981)) (6)
- Washington v. United States, Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited v. United States, Washington Reef Net Owners Association v. United States, Docket Nos. 75-588, 75-592, 75-705 (423 U.S. 1086 (1976)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. 84-3769 (774 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. No. 84-3999 (761 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1985)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 75-2835 and 76-1042 (573 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1978)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 85-3908, 85-4009 (813 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1987)) (5)
- Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997)) (4)
- Duwamish, Samish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie and Steilacoom Indian Tribes v. Washington, Docket No. 81-509 (454 U.S. 1143 (1982)) (4)
- McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942) (4)
- United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Docket No. 99-35960 (235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000)) (4)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. 03-35145 (394 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2005)) (4)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. 81-3502 (694 F.2d 188 (9th Cir. 1982)) (4)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. 90-35887 (969 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992)) (4)
Articles 1 - 30 of 302
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bridges To A New Era Part 2: A Report On The Past, Present, And Potential Future Of Tribal Co-Management On Federal Lands In Alaska, Monte Mills, Martin Nie
Bridges To A New Era Part 2: A Report On The Past, Present, And Potential Future Of Tribal Co-Management On Federal Lands In Alaska, Monte Mills, Martin Nie
Articles
Nowhere else in the United States are tribal connections and reliance on federal public lands as deep and geographically broad-based as in what is now Alaska. The number of Tribes—229 federally recognized tribes—and the scope of the public land resource—nearly 223 million acres—are simply unparalleled. Across that massive landscape, federal public lands and the subsistence uses they provide remain, as they have been since time immemorial, “essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence.”[1] Alas, the institutions, systems, and processes responsible for managing those lands, protecting those uses, and honoring those connections are failing Alaska Native Tribes.
The …
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe v. Lummi Nation, Docket No. 21-913 (142 S.Ct. 1123 (2022))
No abstract provided.
Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief And Brief Of United Catcher Boats As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner
Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation, Docket No. 17-1592 (139 S.Ct. 106 (2018))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Respondent State Of Washington Department Of Fish And Wildlife In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Makah Indian Tribe v. Quileute Indian Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation, Docket No. 17-1592 (139 S.Ct. 106 (2018))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief For The Petitioner
Reply Brief For The Petitioner
Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))
No abstract provided.
Brief Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of Pacific Coast Federation Of Fishermen’S Associations, Alaska Trollers Association, Institute For Fisheries Resources, Fly Fishers International, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Northwest Guides And Anglers Association, Association Of Northwest Steelheaders, And The Conservation Angler In Support Of Respondents
Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))
No abstract provided.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Washington v. United States, Docket No. 17-269 (138 S.Ct. 735 (2018))
No abstract provided.
Foreword: A ‘Coyote Warrior’ And The ‘Great Paradoxes,’ The Scholarship Of Professor Raymond Cross, Monte Mills
Foreword: A ‘Coyote Warrior’ And The ‘Great Paradoxes,’ The Scholarship Of Professor Raymond Cross, Monte Mills
Articles
This Foreword to the Public Land and Resources Law Review special issue republishing and celebrating the scholarship of Professor Raymond Cross provides a context and framework for understanding and appreciating the issue's articles. The Foreword reviews Professor Cross' legacy of work as a tribal attorney on behalf of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) of the Fort Berthold Reservation and discusses the important contributions his scholarly work continue to make to the field of Federal Indian Law. As noted at the conclusion of the Foreword, "[i]t is a true honor to introduce and present some of his important …
New Approaches To Energy Development In Indian Country: The Trust Relationship And Tribal Self-Determination At (Yet Another) Crossroads, Monte Mills
Articles
Energy development in Indian country exists at the crossroads of tribal self-determination and the federal government's trust responsibility. This article reviews the foundations of this crossroads, describes recent developments, and analyzes pending proposals that may enhance both tribal sovereignty and energy development in Indian country.
Proving Natural Resource Damage Under Opa 90: Out With The Rebuttable Presumption, In With Apa-Style Judicial Review?, Craig H. Allen
Proving Natural Resource Damage Under Opa 90: Out With The Rebuttable Presumption, In With Apa-Style Judicial Review?, Craig H. Allen
Articles
In the aftermath of the Deepwater Honrzon oil spill of 2010, Prsident Obama uged Congess to amend the natural resource damage provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to replace the rebuttable presumption of validity the law presently accords to damage assessments by the designated natural resource trustees that were conducted in accordance with regulations promulgated by the National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Administration with the standard of judicial review prescrbed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Although the House of Representatives passed such an amendment in 2010, the Senate failed to act on the amendment before the 111th congressional …
Reply Brief For Petitioner
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari By Respondent Tribes Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, And Tulalip Tribes
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
A Precautionary Tale: Assessing Ecological Damages After The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Sanne Knudsen
A Precautionary Tale: Assessing Ecological Damages After The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Sanne Knudsen
Articles
To address the shortcomings of our existing damages paradigm--exemplified by the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound--this article suggests that we invoke the burden-shifting attributes of the precautionary principle to transfer the risk of long-term, unknown ecological harm to those who have caused the injury. Through such a risk transfer, this article posits that true costs of ecological injury would more properly be borne by actors capable of altering their behavior to avoid such injury in the first place. In addition, this article suggests offering defendants two options for incurring damages for ecological injuries--either accepting …
Answering Brief For The United States
Answering Brief For The United States
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (as amended Jan. 10, 2010))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief And Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe
Reply Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Reply Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community And Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief
The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Opening Brief Of Appellant Suquamish Tribe
Opening Brief Of Appellant Suquamish Tribe
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe
Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.