Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 75--2409
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 529 F.2d 570 |
| Parties | Richard SOHAPPY et al., Appellees, v. McKee A. SMITH et al., Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. STATE OF OREGON et al., Appellants. Richard SOHAPPY et al., Appellees, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant. Richard SOHAPPY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. McKee A. SMITH et al., Defendants-Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF OREGON et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Docket Number | Nos. 75--2409,74--2376 and 74--2617 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1976 |
Page 570
v.
McKee A. SMITH et al., Appellants.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
STATE OF OREGON et al., Appellants.
Richard SOHAPPY et al., Appellees,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant.
Richard SOHAPPY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
McKee A. SMITH et al., Defendants-Appellants.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STATE OF OREGON et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Ninth Circuit.
Page 571
James B. Hovis (argued), Yakima, Wash., Owen M. Panner (argued), Panner, Johnson, Marceau & Karnopp, Bend, Or., for appellees.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen. (argued), State of Or., Portland, Or., James M. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), State of Wash., Olympia, Wash., Carl Strass, Atty. (argued), Land and Natural Resources Section, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Tony Schwab (argued), Seattle, Wash., for intervenor Columbia River Fishermen.
Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and LINDBERG, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
On July 8, 1969, the district court filed its opinion and decree defining the treaty rights of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Tribes), the Nez Perce Indian Tribe of Idaho, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. It construed the treaty right 'of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places' on the Columbia River and its tributaries, and declared the manner and extent to which the State of Oregon could regulate Indian fishing. (Sohappy v. Smith (D.Or.1969) 302 F.Supp. 899.) The district court retained jurisdiction to grant further or amended relief and permitted '(a)ny party at any time (to) apply to
Page 572
the court for a subsequent modification of any provision of this decree where the continued application of the decree has become inequitable or impracticable, but this right shall not affect the finality of the decree with respect to times prior to any such modification.' No one appealed.All concerned parties accommodated themselves to the decree, albeit restively, until April 1974, when a dispute arose over Indian fishing rights in the 1974 spring run of Chinook Salmon. The spring run was not large enough to satisfy all the demands upon it and to conserve the resource. On April 17, 1974, the Washington Department of Fisheries moved to intervene and sought an injunction prohibiting any treaty fishing until the States of Oregon and Washington promulgated regulations permitting Indian fishing. The State of Washington was then substituted for the Department of Fisheries. Upon receiving the consent of Washington to be bound by the 1969 decision and judgment and conditioned thereon, the district court permitted intervention. Oregon and Washington had previously held a hearing which resulted in the decision to close the Columbia River to Indian commercial fishing for the 1974 spring Chinook run while allowing Indian subsistence and ceremonial fishing (a trivial quantity of fish) and sports fishing under general state law. The States then sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the Indians from commercially fishing the river. On April 29, 1974, the district court denied the motion because the States' decision had not been made in conformity with the standards set out in the court's 1969 opinion. The next day the States held another hearing and again found that the closure of the river to Indian commercial fishing was necessary. Based on this finding, the district court issued a temporary restraining order against the Indians on April 30, 1974. After several hearings, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order on May 8,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Ariz. v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., Nos. 79-3427
...of Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir. 1979); Levesque v. State of Maine, 587 F.2d 78, 79 (1st Cir. 1978); Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 1976); 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 110.20(5) (2d ed. 1975). However, often the characteristics and circumstances of an order, no......
-
U.S. v. State of Or., No. 80-3218
...we must determine whether this action is moot. An earlier appeal in this case was dismissed for exactly that reason. Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). See also United States v. Washington, 573 F.2d 1118, 1120 (9th Cir. 1978), aff'd sub nom. Washington v. Washington State Comme......
-
Nez Perce Tribe v. Idaho Power Co., Civ. No. 91-0517-S-HLR.
...rights under the various treaties. See, e.g. United States v. Oregon, 718 F.2d 299, 301-302 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570, 573-574 (9th Cir.1976). Therefore, this Court will consider not only cases construing the 1855 Stevens treaty at issue here, but also cases and ......
-
Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Wash., Nos. 77-3129
...cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086, 96 S.Ct. 877, 47 L.Ed.2d 97 (1976); Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F.Supp. 899 (D.Or.1969); United States v. Oregon, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). The geographic areas covered by these appeals are Puget Sound, the Washington coast south to and including Gray's Harbor, an......
-
U.S. v. State of Or., No. 80-3218
...we must determine whether this action is moot. An earlier appeal in this case was dismissed for exactly that reason. Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). See also United States v. Washington, 573 F.2d 1118, 1120 (9th Cir. 1978), aff'd sub nom. Washington v. Washington State Comme......
-
Nez Perce Tribe v. Idaho Power Co., Civ. No. 91-0517-S-HLR.
...rights under the various treaties. See, e.g. United States v. Oregon, 718 F.2d 299, 301-302 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1983); Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570, 573-574 (9th Cir.1976). Therefore, this Court will consider not only cases construing the 1855 Stevens treaty at issue here, but also cases and ......
-
State of Ariz. v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., Nos. 79-3427
...of Vuitton et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir. 1979); Levesque v. State of Maine, 587 F.2d 78, 79 (1st Cir. 1978); Sohappy v. Smith, 529 F.2d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 1976); 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 110.20(5) (2d ed. 1975). However, often the characteristics and circumstances of an order, no......
-
Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Wash., Nos. 77-3129
...cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086, 96 S.Ct. 877, 47 L.Ed.2d 97 (1976); Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F.Supp. 899 (D.Or.1969); United States v. Oregon, 529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976). The geographic areas covered by these appeals are Puget Sound, the Washington coast south to and including Gray's Harbor, an......