Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL No. 21-35812 COMMUNITY; TULALIP TRIBES; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, D.C. No. 2:19-sp- 00001-RSM Petitioners-Appellees, v. OPINION LUMMI NATION, Respondent-Appellant, STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE OF INDIANS; HOH INDIAN TRIBE; SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; STATE OF WASHINGTON; JAMESTOWN S’K

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL No. 21-35812 COMMUNITY; TULALIP TRIBES; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, D.C. No. 2:19-sp- 00001-RSM Petitioners-Appellees, v. ORDER AND LUMMI NATION, AMENDED OPINION Respondent-Appellant, STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE OF INDIANS; HO

(2008) SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. SKAGIT COUNTY DIKE DISTRICT NO. 22, et al., Defendants. Case No. C07-1348RAJ. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. September 5, 2008. ORDER RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on cross-motions for par

166 P.3d 1198 (2007) SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY and Washington Environmental Council, Petitioners, v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD; Skagit County, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington; Skagit County Farm Bureau; Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland; Western Washington *1199 Agricultural Association; Skagit County Diking District No. 3; Skagit County Diking District No.

OPINION HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: In this treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“the Upper Skagit”) filed a Request for Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe’s (“the Suquamish”) usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&A”) as determined by Judge Boldt

141 F.3d 1355 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,174, 98 Cal. Daily Op.Serv. 2843,98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3920 MUCKLESHOOT TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellee,andSquaxin Island; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Puyallup Tribe, Plaintiffs,v.LUMMI INDIAN TRIBE, Defendant-Appellant.MUCKLESHOOT TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellee,andSquaxin Island; Puyallup Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe, Plaintiffs,v.LUMMI INDIAN TRIBE

282 F.3d 710 MIDWATER TRAWLERS CO-OPERATIVE; West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Fishermen's Marketing Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, andState of Oregon; State of Washington, Plaintiffs,v.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; the National Marine Fisheries Service; Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce; Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration; William W. Stelle, Jr., Direc

898 F.Supp. 1477 (1995) CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF the YAKAMA INDIAN NATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Malcolm BALDRIGE, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 80-342. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. September 7, 1995. *1478 Tim Roy Weaver, Yakima, WA, Jack Warren Fiander, Yakama Indian Nation, Office of Legal

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge. We consider in this appeal a challenge by fishing industry groups and the States of Oregon and Washington to a federal regulation that increased the amount of Pacific whiting fish allocated to four Indian tribes. We affirm in part and reverse in part, with instructions to the district court to remand to the agency for more specific findings. I

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: This appeal asks whether the Treaty of Point Elliott (the “Treaty”) reserves to the Lummi Nation (the “Lummi”) the right to fish in the waters west of Whidbey Island, Washington. We previously , concluded that the Treaty secures the Lummfs right to fish in Admiralty Inlet because the

*1192ORDER DENYING NISQUALLY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG- ■ MENT AND GRANTING SQUAX-IN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Nisqually Indian Tribe’s (“Nisqually”) and Squaxin Indian Tribe’s (“Squaxin”) Cross-Motions for Summary

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: In 1854 and 1855, Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest entered into a series of treaties, now known as the “Stevens Treaties,” negotiated by Isaac I. Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs and Governor of Washington Territory. Under the Stevens Treaties (“Treaties”) at issue in this case, the tribes relinquished large swaths of land west of the Cascade Mountains and n

*952ORDER The opinion filed on June 27, 2016 is amended as follows: At 855 of the published opinion, U.S. v. Washington, 827 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2016), add the following subheading beneath “C. Washington’s Cross-Request”: “1. Injunction.” On the same page, add “for an injunction” following “The district court struck

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DEFINE BURDEN OF PROOF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioner Makah Indian Tribe (the “Makah”) (Dkt. #248), Motion for Summary Judgment by Respondents Quileute Indian Tribe (the “Quileute”) and Quinault Indian Nation (the “Quinault”) (Dkt. #251

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM ORDER RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This..subproceeding is before the Court pursuant to the request of. the Makah Indian Tribe (the “Makah”) to determine the usual and accustomed fishing grounds (“Ü & A”) of the . Quileute Indian Tribe (the “Quileute”) and the Quinault Indian Nation

TABLE OF CONTENTS ORDER PAGE Minute Order (1/3/07) 831 Order on Motions for Summary Judgment (1/3/07) 831 Order on Motion for Reconsideration (1/17/07) 841 Stipulation of Plaintiffs and State of Washington regarding Scope of Subproeeeding, and Order (1/29/07) 845 Joint Motion for Order and Consent Decree Approving Settlement Agre

ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ROTHSTEIN, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the court on motions by the Makah Tribe (hereinafter “Makah”), the United States Secretary of Commerce (hereinafter the “Secretary”), and the State of Oregon (hereinafter “Oregon”), each seeking summary *1220judgment on the methodology to be used in allocating

143 F.Supp.2d 1218 (2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. No. C70-9213. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. April 5, 2001. *1219 Robert Kirk Costello, Attorney General's Office, Fish & Wildlife, Olympia, WA, for defendants. Barbara J. Gaze

*693¶1 We review for the second time the issue of whether, under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, Ferry County included best available science (BAS) when failing to identify any important local habitats and species as part of its critical areas ordinance. We also ask whether any departure from best available science by Ferry County was reasonably justified.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; No. 13-35474 SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; SAUK-SUIATTLE TRIBE; D.C. Nos. STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE; HOH 2:01-sp-00001-RSM TRIBE; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM 2:70-cv-09213-RSM TRIBE; LOWER ELWHA BAND OF KLALLAMS; PORT GAMBLE BAND CLALLAM; NISQUALLY OPINION INDIAN TRIBE; NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE; SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE; SQUAXIN ISLAND TR