United States Ninth Circuit

In a motion by an Indian tribe pursuant to a prior consent decree seeking a determination that the tribe possessed fishing rights in a certain area, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the fact that the judge who initially issued the decree defined "Puget Sound" in one order as including Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage did not mean that references to "Puget Sound" in other orders always included those same areas.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/21/2008
• Decided 01/05/2010
• Published 01/05/2010

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.