Washington v. United States
Washington v. United States
444 U.S. 816; 100 S. Ct. 34
(United States Reports)
Cases that cite this one
41 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Miller (Wash. 1984)
- State v. Stritmatter (Wash. 1984)
- Flying T Ranch, Inc., V. Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians (Wash. Ct. App. 2024)
- Flying T Ranch, Inc., V. Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians (Wash. Ct. App. 2024)
- People of Michigan v. Walter Joseph Caswell (Mich. Ct. App. 2021)
- State v. Buchanan (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)
- Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Jamestown S'klallam Tribe (9th Cir. 2019)
- The Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Daniel Little Axe, Governor v. The State of Kansas (10th Cir. 1988)
- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. Greg Wooten (9th Cir. 2023)
- Cherokee Nation v. Nash (District Court, District of Columbia 2017)
- Baley v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2017)
- Aransas Project v. Shaw (District Court, S.D. Texas 2013)
- Columbus-America Discovery Group v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance (4th Cir. 2000)
- Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor v. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (7th Cir. 1993)
- Satsky v. Paramount Communications, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1991)
- South Dakota v. Bourland (8th Cir. 1991)
- Westlake North Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Thousand Oaks (9th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1989)
- Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Hall (District Court, W.D. Washington 1988)
- Jenkins ex rel. Agyei v. Missouri (8th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1987)
- United States v. State of Oregon and State of Washington, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Spring Reservation, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees (9th Cir. 1983)
- Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. 2026)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
443 U. S. 658. Upon consideration of the motion of the State of Washington for modification of the opinion of this Court, the memorandum filed by the respondent tribes, the memorandum filed by the United States and the reply thereto, it is ordered that footnote 16 of the opinion be modified as follows:
"A factual dispute exists on the question of what percentage of the fish in the case area actually passes through Indian fishing areas and is therefore subject to the District Court’s allocations. In the absence of any*817 relevant findings by the courts below, we are unable to express any view on the matter.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.