| |
| | USA v STATE OF WASHINGTON, 9635014 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03) |
 | | They contend that the Tribes' "usual and accustomed" fishing grounds for shellfish are not coextensive with the usual and accustomed grounds for the taking of other fish, the boundaries of which were determined in Washington I. They suggest that the Tribes must establish their usual and accustomed grounds for each species of fish. |
 | | In their cross-appeal, the Tribes and the United States contend that, in its implementation decision (Shellfish II), the district court disregarded its own admonition in its first decision that it lacked authority to rewrite or interpret the terms of the treaties to avoid hardship to any party based on its own notions of the equities. |
 | | Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S., 519 n.5 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (citing Yankton and acknowledging that equitable considerations might have limited the remedies available had the plaintiff tribe prevailed on its claim to 144,000 acres of land); County of Oneida v. |
| www.olympus.net /personal/ptmaccon/pif/issues/court_cases/shellfish_1_9thc.html (13447 words) |
|