This case involved a dispute over whether five intervenor groups—the Duwamish, Samish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Steilacoom Tribes—could claim fishing rights under the Point Elliott and Medicine Creek treaties as parties to those agreements. The court held that none of the intervenors qualified as treaty tribes in the political sense and therefore possessed no rights to fish under the treaties or to confer such rights on their members. The decision rested on the principle that only Indian tribes recognized by the United States as political entities may exercise rights secured by federal treaties, drawing on historical federal policies of assimilation and reorganization, the absence of continuous tribal political organization for these groups, and the federal government's exclusive authority to determine political status in Indian affairs.
This case concerns the ongoing enforcement of tribal treaty fishing rights in Washington state waters following the 1974 Boldt Decision, which allocated a portion of salmon and steelhead runs to treaty tribes. The district court compiled and issued numerous post-trial orders through mid-1978, including injunctions against state court interference, management plans for specific fisheries such as Fraser River sockeye, herring, and hatchery fish, determinations of tribes' usual and accustomed fishing areas, and procedures for state emergency regulations. The court reasoned that federal judgments must be protected from inconsistent state actions under principles allowing injunctions to effectuate prior rulings, while establishing advisory boards and allocation frameworks to implement equitable sharing and resource management between tribal and nontribal fishers. Orders addressed issues like on-reservation fisheries, steelhead management, and compliance with federal law over state permitting.
This case involved claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act by the families of flight engineers killed in the 1965 crash of an Aaxico Airlines DC-6 cargo plane into Mt. Rainier while flying under visual flight rules from Boeing Field to Hill Air Force Base. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by government personnel in providing weather information and air traffic control services. After reviewing extensive evidence from the ten-day trial, the court found that the flight crew had received adequate weather forecasts, chose to fly VFR despite potential clouds, and that air traffic controllers and weather forecasters performed their duties properly without negligence. Consequently, the court dismissed both actions on the merits with prejudice, awarding costs to the defendant United States.
This diversity jurisdiction case involved an insurance company, Universal Underwriters, seeking indemnification from Security Industries for attorney fees and investigation costs incurred defending its insured, Hayhoe-Powell, as a third-party defendant in a prior personal injury action (Whitaker) arising from a camper explosion. The court determined that the applicable three-year statute of limitations under Washington law for actions based on implied contract had not run, as the claim accrued upon entry of final judgment in the prior case absolving the insured of liability, and the complaint was timely filed. On the merits, the court held that indemnity was available because the insured was found not negligent, the defendant was solely liable, and the procedural posture of the prior suit (chosen to preserve diversity) did not bar recovery of defense costs that would not have been incurred but for the defendant's active negligence. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $16,095.19 plus interest and costs.
This case involves a motion for partial summary judgment by plaintiff Lange against defendants Heglund and others, based on findings from a prior Washington state court action (Ginsberg v. Heglund) concerning the defendants' purchase of shares in Unique without disclosing material inside information such as increased sales, a new contract, merger discussions, and their own identities as buyers. The court addressed whether collateral estoppel could apply without mutuality of parties and whether it could be used offensively. It determined that Washington law permits non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel when the issues are identical, there was a final judgment on the merits, the defendants were parties to the prior case, and no injustice results. The court therefore granted the motion, applying the prior findings of fact and conclusions of law (except those specific to the Ginsberg plaintiffs) that established violations of state securities law (RCW 21.20.010) and breaches of fiduciary duty.
This case involved a dispute between the United States, acting as trustee for several Western Washington Indian tribes, and the State of Washington over the tribes' rights to fish for anadromous species at off-reservation locations under 19th-century treaties. The tribes sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to enforce those rights against state fishing regulations enforced by the Departments of Fisheries and Game. The court ruled that the treaties reserved to the tribes the right to fish at their usual and accustomed grounds and stations, that state regulations must be reasonable and necessary for conservation and applied equally to treaty and non-treaty fishers, and that the tribes are entitled to an equal share of the harvestable fish. The decision rested on findings about pre-treaty Indian fishing practices, the negotiation and text of the treaties, post-treaty history, and the absence of evidence that tribal fishing threatened conservation.
