United States Ninth Circuit

In an action by an Indian tribe claiming that another tribe was fishing outside of its adjudicated grounds, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where an injunction issued earlier in the same case was properly interpreted to place the disputed fishing grounds in defendant's territory.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/21/2008
• Decided 08/06/2009
• Published 08/06/2009

Judges

• Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, PAMELA ANN RYMER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michelle Hansen, Office of Tribal Attorney, Suquamish, WA, for appellant, Suquamish Tribe. Douglas B.L., Endreson, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, Washington, D.C., for appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe. Lorane F. Hebert, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for appellant, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe., Richard M. Berley, Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley & Slonim, Seattle, WA, for intervenor-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Harold Chesnin, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Sedro Woolley, WA, (argued); Andrew H. Salter, Seattle, WA, for appellee, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. James M. Jannetta, LaConner, W. WA, for appellee, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Lauren P. Rasmussen, Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, Seattle, WA, for appellees, Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for appellee, The Tulalip Tribes.