Sohappy v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that state may regu- late tribe’s treaty-reserved fishing rights “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”
• a state may regulate Indian treaty fishing \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.\
• a state may regulate Indian treaty fishing \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 state may regulate fishing by non-Indians to achieve a wide variety of management or ‘conservation’ objectives. Its selection of regulations ... is limited only by its own organic law and the standards of reasonableness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
• “no merit” to contention that Yakima Indian Nation’s treaty-based right to fish in Columbia River were “in some manner altered or affected by Oregon’s admission to the Union on an ‘equal footing’ basis subsequent to the time the treaties” became effective.
• judicial review of state action is appropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).