Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 75-1106
| Decision Date | 12 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1106,75-1106 |
| Citation | 534 F.2d 1376 |
| Parties | The CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James M. NAMEN et al., and City of Polson, a Montana Municipal Corporation, Intervenor, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before BARNES, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellee Namen owns property bordering upon Flathead Lake, within the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana. Namen is the successor in interest to an Indian allottee who, pursuant to the Indian Allotment Act of 1904 (33 Stat. 302) and amendments thereto, obtained from the United States a patent in fee covering the lakeside property in question. In connection with his business, Namen has constructed piers, wharves, and other structures related to navigation, which extend over the bed and bank of Flathead Lake.
The City of Polson, Montana was permitted to intervene as a defendant. The city also owns lakeside property within the Reservation, from which public docks have been constructed for recreational use.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes brought suit in the District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Namen's waterfront structures were in trespass upon Indian property, and seeking injunctive relief prohibiting future trespasses and requiring demolition of existing structures. The bases for the requested relief were that, allegedly, (1) the Tribes, as beneficial owners of the lake bed, have the exclusive right to control its use; (2) allotments of lakeside property were never meant to convey riparian rights; and (3) no such rights exist at present because they are not recognized in the (allegedly controlling) tribal law.
In a carefully reasoned opinion, the District Court (Judge Jameson, presiding) granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendants, recognizing the existence of their riparian rights of wharfage and access to navigable waters, but reserving judgment on the question whether existing structures abused those rights. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 380 F.Supp. 452 (D.Mont.1974).
The Tribes appeal from the adverse summary judgment. This Court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Namen
...for defendants in August 1974. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen (Namen I), 380 F.Supp. 452 (D.Mont.1974), aff'd, 534 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 929, 97 S.Ct. 336, 50 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976). The district court held: (1) the Namens' title extends only to the high-w......
-
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. U.S.
...title to the river passed to the state upon its admission to the Union; Choctaw Nation holds the opposite. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 534 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 929, 97 S.Ct. 336, 50 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976), is equally inapposite to the government's a......
-
U.S. v. Finch
...of riparian rights conveyed by deeds to such lands must be determined as a matter of federal law. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Namen, 534 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1976), aff'g 380 F.Supp. 452 In the Namen case this Court concluded that Congress must have intended that grants of......
-
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
... ... Namen , 665 F.2d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Actions and utterances of federal officers that manifest no single clear perception of the Reservation's ... ...