Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 978 P.2d 1070 - State v. Buchanan

State v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024

7 state decisions

701999200020102020decided

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. · United States v. Lineas Winans · Ray Jones v. Patrick Meehan · Antoine v. Washington · Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Wash.

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Game Management Units (GMUs) opened for hunting by [Point No Point] Tribes include areas beyond the geographic scopes of the [Point No Point] Ceded Area (e.g., Hoko, Quinault Ridge, and Wynoochee), as interpreted by WDFW.... Tribal hunting outside of Ceded Area, from our perspective, is contingent upon our understanding of the Tribe having used and occupied those traditional areas over an extended period of time prior to or during the time their respective Treaties were signed.... Under the Treaty ..., the Tribes reserved the right to hunt on “open and unclaimed lands” within the Treaty Area. Private land, even with the permission of the landowner, is not “open and unclaimed.” While WDFW has expressed its willingness to enter into agreements with Tribes relative to Tribal hunting activities on private industrial timberlands, which is a subset of private lands defined by specific criteria, we do not have any agreements relative to Tribal hunting activities on other types of private land. While Tribal regulations may allow hunting on private industrial timber-lands, from our point of view, this activity is contingent on an agreement with WDFW, permission from the landowner, and acceptance by the County Prosecutor of the terms of the agreement. Absent all three of these items, WDFW enforcement officers would apply state law to Treaty hunters hunting on private industrial timberlands.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under the reservation of rights doctrine, tribal members have possessed certain rights, such as hunting and fishing, from time immemorial. A treaty between a tribe and the United States documents a grant of some rights from the tribe to the federal government. However, those rights not expressly ceded in the treaty, as well as those expressly reserved, remain with the tribe.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he scope of a tribe's off-reservation hunting rights is generally found in an Indian tribe's aboriginal use of or title to land and its reservation of the right in a treaty, or by agreement, executive order or statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.