United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the law of the case doctrine will apply only if the decision resolved that issue by necessary implication
• holding that district court’s summary judgment order, which left no issues to be resolved, was not final where no final judgment was entered, and the parties continued to litigate after the plaintiff filed an amended pleading
• holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is “discretionary” and that a district court abuses its discretion “in applying the law of the case doctrine only if: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening change in the law occurred; (3
• finding Judge Boldt did not intend to include contested waters in the Lummi Indian Tribe’s U&A determinations because, in part, “[n]one of Dr. Lane’s testimony identified specific areas as far west and south” as the contested waters
• “If one starts at the mouth of the Fraser River . . . and travels past Orcas and San Juan Islands . . . it is natural to proceed through Admiralty Inlet . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).