302 F. Supp. 899 - Sohappy v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2014 · most notably Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. (1979), United States v. Washington (1974)
31 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1345 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Winters v. People of State of New York · Cardillo v. United States · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the state cannot so manage the fishery that little or no harvestable portion of the run remains to reach the upper portions of the stream where the historic Indian places are mostly located. [T]he protection of the treaty right to take fish at the Indians’ usual and accustomed places must be an objective ... co-equal with the conservation of fish runs for other users.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . state restriction on treaty referenced fishing must be `necessary for the conservation of the fish.' . . . It [the Supreme Court] was not endorsing any particular state management program which is based not only upon that factor but also upon allocation of fish among particular user groups or harvest areas, or classification of fish to particular uses or modes of taking. The state may regulate fishing by non-Indians to achieve a wide variety of management or `conservation' objectives. Its selection of regulations to achieve these objectives is limited only by its own organic law and the standards of reasonableness required by the Fourteenth Amendment. But when it is regulating the federal right of Indians to take fish at their usual and accustomed places it does not have the same latitude in prescribing the management objectives and the regulatory means of achieving them. The state may not qualify the federal right by subordinating it to some other state objective or policy. It may use its police power only to the extent necessary to prevent the exercise of that right in a manner that will imperil the continued existence of the fish resource. The measure of the legal propriety of a regulation concerning the time and manner of exercising this `federal right' is, therefore, `distinct from the federal constitutional standard concerning the scope of the police power of the State.' [citations] To prove necessity, the state must show there is a need to limit the taking of fi”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“least restrictive which can be imposed consistent with assuring the necessary escapement of fish for conservation purposes.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.