Moses v. Washington, 389 U.S. 428 <I>(per curiam)</I> (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court, (December 18, 1967)

Docket number: 246

/us/389/428/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/moses-v-washington-19992430
Id. vLex: VLEX-19992430

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians Et Al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Et Al., Intervenors-Defendants, Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited and Gary Ellis,Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians Et Al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, v. State of Washington, Defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Et Al., Intervenors-Defendants, Washington Reef Net Owners Association, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians Et Al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of Washington, Defendant-Appellee, Thor C. Tollefson, Etc. Et Al., Intervenors-Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Quinault Tribe of Indians Et Al., Intervenors-Plaintiffs, V...., 520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975)

See all citations to this document

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court MOSES v. WASHINGTON, 389 U.S. 428 (1967) 389 U.S. 428

MOSES ET AL. v. WASHINGTON ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 246. Decided December 18, 1967.

70 Wash. 2d 282, 422 P.2d 775, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

L. Frederick Paul and Frederick W. Post for appellants.

James E. Kennedy and J. L. Coniff, Special Assistant Attorneys General of Washington, for appellees.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[Page 389 U.S. 428, 429]