102 Wash. 2d 678 - State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2014
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. · Ohio v. Gallagher · Choate v. Trapp · Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington · Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians ... together with the privilege of hunting ... on open and unclaimed lands.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Though hunting rights can arise from various sources, most existing off-reservation hunting rights in the Pacific Northwest were reserved by tribes in treaties signed with the federal government between 1853 and 1871. Treaties were the primary means by which the federal government sought to provide for the orderly westward expansion of non-native society. In the typical treaty, the signatory Indians relinquished their rights to aboriginal lands in exchange for money and confinement to a reservation with distinct boundaries. The reservation system, in addition to minimizing confrontations between encroaching settlers and the resident Indians, was also intended to transform Indians into "a pastoral and civilized people." As a result, game populations were not one of the primary factors considered in the federal government's choice of reservation lands, and many tribes were removed to reservations located far from their traditional hunting grounds. In response to a strong desire on the part of tribes to retain access to these areas, treaties with Northwest Indians provided for ... "the privilege of hunting ... on open and unclaimed lands[.]" In essence, these treaty provisions preserved a portion of the aboriginal rights exercised by the signatory tribes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buchanan“We do not read Antoine as giving Indians the exclusive right to hunt, but rather as ensuring that their right to hunt is not impaired for purposes other than those of conservation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Buchanan
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.