top of page

MASTER LOGO_edited.png

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE CASES INDEX

General Hoopa · Trinity-Klamath Fishing & Restoration · Short & Karuk

General Hoopa Cases

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Department of Health & Human Services, CBCA No. 4757-ISDA (09/10/15) (Settlement of IHS contract support cost underpayments).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, CFC No. 06-908 (10/23/12) (Settlement of breach of trust asset management claims).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Ryan, 415 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirmed rejection of mandatory self-governance compacting for certain Trinity River restoration activities).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Ryan, Order re CMSJ (N.D. Cal. No. C-02-0041 SC) (08/14/03) (rejecting mandatory self-governance compacting for certain Trinity River restoration activities).

U.S.A. v. McKinnon, N.D. Cal. No. CR 02-356 VRW (08/15/03) (criminal statute regarding property owned by the United States does not apply to unallotted land of the HVR).

Bugenig v. Hoopa Valley Tribe, 266 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (Settlement Act gave Tribal Council authority to regulate land use of non-Indian on the HVR).

Moore v. Nelson, 270 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2001) (habeas corpus writ not available to nonmember who was penalized by tribal court for unlawful wood cutting).

In re Blue Lake Forest Products, 30 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming that federal laws protecting trust timber preempt the application of state commercial law to a sale of timber).

Rowland v. Members of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Memo, and Order (N.D. Cal. No. C-92-2910 SAW) (Federal court has jurisdiction over nonmember's challenge to tribal council's determination of trespass).

In re Blue Lake Forest Products, 143 B.R. 563 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (federal laws protecting timber held in trust preempt the application of state commercial law to a sale of such timber).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins, 881 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming that federal law preempts the application of California's timber yield tax on nonmember's harvest of tribal timber).

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Prot. Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (04/19/88) (First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit the Government from permitting timber harvesting in the Chimney Rock area or constructing the proposed Gasquet-Orleans road).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins, Memo. Decision and Order (N.D. Cal. No. C-82-5903-MHP) (10/06/87) (although successful in showing that federal law preempts the application of California's timber yield tax, tribe cannot recover attorney fees).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 805 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1986) (reversing ruling that benefits the tribe received from location of BIA agency on HVR had risen to the level of property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment and that the Bureau had a duty to consult with the tribe based on the government's fiduciary responsibility to the Indians and on its own regulations).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Nevins, Opinion (N.D. Cal. No. C-82-5903-MHP) (07/06/84) (federal law preempts the application of California's timber yield tax on nonmember's harvest of tribal timber).

S.W. Forest Industries v. Hoopa Timber Corp., Order (Ct. App. Cal. No. A015598) (05/17/84) (Supreme Court order that opinion filed January 26, 1984 shall not be published).

S.W. Forest Industries v. Hoopa Timber Corp., Opinion (Ct. App. Cal. No. A015598) (01/26/84) (sovereign immunity did not prevent court from enforcing contract of Hoopa Timber Corporation that was expressly made enforceable under state law).

McCovey v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes, Opinion (Ct. Cl. No. 83-767) (08/12/83) (upholding denial of intervention because of inordinate delay after time plaintiff should have known of the claim).

McCovey v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Order re. TRO and Preliminary Inj. (N.D. Cal. No. C 82-6196 TEH) (05/13/83) (denying relief to plaintiffs in light of completed judgment distribution).

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 293 (01/12/83) (denying untimely intervention motion of Short plaintiffs who knew of Hoopa trust management claims filed in 1970).

Angle v. United States, 769 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1983) (Secretary improperly extended application deadline for 1968 Indians of California payments).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Watt, 569 F.Supp. 943 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (awarding attorneys fees for the government's refusal to approve a stream clearance '638 contract on grounds that the Yurok tribe had not approved the contract).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Watt, Order of Dismissal (N.D. Cal. No. C-81-3094 MHP) (07/15/82) (stipulated dismissal of '638 stream clearance contract case except for fee claim).

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 671 F.2d 1305 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (approving settlement of Hoopa trust funds mismanagement claims although the U.S. had, after settlement, urged that the case be consolidated with Short v. United States).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Watt, Preliminary Inj. Re. '81 Trinity River Stream Clearance Contract (N.D. Cal. No. C-81-3094-MHP) (08/04/81) (issuing injunction re. '638 contract that was refused by BIA Area Director because it lacked a Yurok Tribe supporting resolution despite the fact that the Yurok Tribe had no recognized governing body that could enact resolutions).

Randall v. Califano, 500 F.Supp 691 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (denying tribal members supplemental security income payments due to their receipt of per capita payments because, under prior law, distribution traceable to sale of trees cut from tribal lands were not excludable).

United States v. County of Humboldt, 615 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming ruling that county was without jurisdiction to enforce its zoning and building codes against Indian construction projects on Indian trust property within reservation).

United States v. Humboldt Fir, Inc., 625 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming district court opinion below without separate opinion).

County of Trinity v. Andrus, 483 F.Supp. 1368 (E.D. Cal. 1977) (rejecting claims that the planned operation of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project in response to the 1976-77 drought was improper because proviso requiring "appropriate measures to insure the preservation" of fish imposes no absolute duty to maintain fish populations at pre-dam levels).

In re Humboldt Fir. Inc., 426 F.Supp. 292 (N.D. Cal. 1977) (allowing bankruptcy claim where Indian tribe was not at fault for debtor's failure to perform contract for sale of timber and state law did not govern).

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 512 F.2d 1390 (1975) (ruling that the fiduciary duty which the United States undertook with respect to these tribal trust funds includes the "obligation to maximize the trust income by prudent investment," and the trustee has the burden of proof to justify less than a maximum return).

Pallin v. United States, 496 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1974) (ruling that Yurok Indian seeking public domain allotment had right to cancel allotment given to brother who lived on reservation at time he filed application for allotment).

Thompson v. United States, 8 Ind. Cl. Com. 1 (1959)

Thompson v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 348 (1953)

Indians of California v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 562 (1942)

Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 1035 (06/09/13)

Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (04/07/13)

Thompson v. United States, 44 Ct. Cl. 359 (1909)

Crichton v. Shelton, 33 L.D. 205 (1904)

Osborn v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 304 ( 1898)

Painter v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 114 (1897)

United States v. Forty-Eight Pounds of Rising Star Tea, 35 Fed. 403 (N.D. Cal 1888)

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886)

Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312 (Fed Cir. 2019) (affirming rejection of Fifth Amendment taking claims of Klamath irrigators because water was required to satisfy tribal water rights that were senior to water rights of irrigators).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation, N.D. Cal. No. 16-04294 (06/11/19) (stipulated settlement of tribe's claim to recover the costs of litigation, including attorney and expert witness fees, incurred when Reclamation violated Endangered Species Act).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, 913 F.3d 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (reversing FERC order where states exceeded the statutory time limit to exercise their rights to impose water quality conditions).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 230 F.Supp.3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (issuing injunction where agencies violated Endangered Species Act by failing to re-initiate formal consultation following two years of record rates of disease among listed Coho salmon in Klamath River).

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Haugrud, 848 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017) (reversing ruling that 1955 statute directing preservation and propagation of fish as part of operation of Trinity dam did not provide authorization for flow augmentation releases).

ONRC Action v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 798 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming ruling that the Bureau of Reclamation did not violate the Clean Water Act by discharging water containing pollutants from the Straits Drain into the Klamath river without a permit because the Drain was not meaningfully distinct from waters of the river and no permit was required).

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell, 52 F.Supp.3d 1020 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (upholding water district's claim that Bureau of Reclamation lacked authority to make flow augmentation releases of water from Trinity Dam).

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d 505 (Fed Cir. 2011) (vacating and remanding ruling that Bureau of Reclamation's temporary reductions of irrigation water did not breach contracts for supply of water from Klamath River Basin or violate Fifth Amendment as uncompensated taking of property).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, 629 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirming FERC's refusal to impose conditions on PacifiCorp's annual licenses so as to preserve the Klamath River's trout fishery).

Klamath Water Users Ass'n v. FERC, 534 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (affirming FERC's ruling that annual licenses issued to PacifiCorp would not include the terms of 1917 contract providing low-cost electric power for irrigation use in the Klamath River Basin).

Oregon Trollers Ass'n v. Gutierrez, 452 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming ruling that regulation implementing Pacific Fishery Management Council's 35,000 natural spawner escapement floor for Klamath River Chinook was based upon the best scientific information available).

PacifiCorp Project No. 2082 Order re. Denial of DOI request for Klamath rate subsidy (FERC 01/19/06)

Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman's Ass'n v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming ruling that ESA was violated and concluding that the short-term measures of the 2002 biological opinion are also arbitrary and capricious).

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, No. 01-591L (Fed. Cl. 08/31/05) (ruling that irrigators' expectations do not give those landowners property rights as against the United States, and the application of the Endangered Species Act, although contract rights may exist).

Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman's Ass'n v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, N.D. Cal. No. C02-2006 SBA (Order dismissing Yurok Tribe's Fourth Claim for Relief (3/9/05)

Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman's Ass'n v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Agreement between the United States and the Hoopa Valley Tribe (Fourth Claim for Relief) (10/17/04)

Westlands Water Dist. V. Hoopa Valley Tribe, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversing ruling that Trinity River Fisheries Restoration Record of Decision of 2000 violated NEPA and Endangered Species Act requirements).

Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman's Ass'n v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Order re. MSJ (N.D. Cal. No. C02-2006 SBA) (07/15/03) (order finding that NMFS' issuance of a reasonable and prudent alternative in 2002 biological opinion was arbitrary and capricious since it relied on actions that are not reasonably certain to occur).

Klamath Water Users Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming ruling that PacifiCorp is not liable to the irrigators for implementing Reclamation's water allocation decisions for the project because irrigators are not third-party beneficiaries of 1956 contract).

Memo from Sol. to Regional Director re. OR AAG's March 18, 1996 Letter, (01/09/97) (reaffirming positions of the United States regarding management of water projects for irrigation, wildlife protection, and Indian rights, and affirming the July 25, 1995 memorandum from the Regional Solicitor).

Memo from Sol. to Regional Director re. Certain Legal Rights and Obligations, (07/25/95) (describing rights of Klamath Project water users, the National Wildlife Refugres and the Klamath, Yurok, and Hoopa Tribes).

Parravano v. Babbitt, 70 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming rulings that federally reserved fishing rights vested in Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes by executive orders and by 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act constituted "other applicable law" within meaning of Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and that regulations reducing ocean harvest of Klamath chinook were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion).

Parravano v. Babbitt, 861 F.Supp. 914 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

Fishing Rights of the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribes, M-36979 (10/14/93)

Mattz v. Superior Court of California, 240 Cal. Rptr. 723 (1987)

United States v. Wilson, Erickson and Eberhardt, 789 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1986)

United States v. Wilson, Erickson and Eberhardt, 611 F.Supp. 813 (N.D. Cal. 1985)

United States v. Wilson, Erickson and Eberhardt, Order re. Mots. to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. No. CR-84-0396-MAG (03/05/85)

People v. McCovey, 36 Cal. 3d 517, 205 Cal. Rptr. 643 (1984)

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Baldridge, Order re. 1982 Regs. (N.D. Cal. No. C-3145 MHP) (06/25/84)

Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1981)

Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman's Ass'n v. Secretary of Commerce, 494 F.Supp. 626 (N.D. Cal. 1980)

People v. Frank, 101 Cal. App. 3d 8, 162 Cal. Rptr. 303 (1979)

Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 7687 (9th Cir. 1979)

Arnett v. 5 Gill Nets, 48 Cal. App. 3d 454, 121 Cal. Rptr. 906 (1975)

Kimball v. Callahan, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974)

Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973)

Arnett v. 5 Gill Nets, 20 Cal. App. 3d 729, 97 Cal. Rptr. 894 (1971)

Donahue v. California Justice Court, 15 Cal. App. 3d 557, 93 Cal. Rptr. 310 (1971)

Klamath - Trinity Fishing and Restoration

Short & HYSA Cases and Rulings

Short v. United States, Fed. Cl. No 102-63 (06/25/13) (order transferring all further distribution proceedings to Yurok Tribal court as of 6/28/13).

Short v. United States, Fed. Cl. No 102-63 (06/03/13) (order approving transfer of all monies in the Short Judgment to the new Trustee and closing case as of 6/28/13)

Short v. United States, Fed. Cl. No 102-63 (06/19/12) (order approving Jessie Short Educational Foundation to be administered by the Yurok Tribal Court Chief Judge which will receive the remaining funds in the Jessie Short Judgment Trust).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, 597 F.3d 1278 (Fed Cir. 2010) (affirming ruling that Hoopa Valley Tribe lacked injury in fact for standing to challenge settlement fund distribution).

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, (dismissed for lack of standing) (March 25, 2009) (claim that Settlement Fund distribution to Yurok Tribe breached trust dismissed for lack of standing).

Karuk Tribe of California v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (affirming ruling that plaintiff tribes and individuals did not possess compensable vested property interest in former Hoopa Valley Reservation, and thus Settlement Act partition was not an unconstitutional taking).

Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 468 (1998)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Mot. to Require Gov't to Deposit Per Capita Shares (Fed. Cl. No. 102-63) (08/04/98)

Short v. United States, Order re Disbursements, Deposits & Payment of Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 102-63) (12/21/95)

Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 694 (1993)

Heller, Ehrman, White & Macauliffe v. Babbitt, 992 F.2d 360 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

Aanstadt v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 146-85 L) (07/29/93)

Aanstadt v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Final Order Directing Entry of Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 146-85 L) (07/29/93)

Ackley v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 460-78) (07/29/93)

Ackley v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Final Order Directing Entry of Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 460-78) (07/23/93)

Griffen v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 746-85 L) (07/29/93)

Griffen v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Final Order DIrecting Entry of Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 746-85 L) (07/29/93)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 102-63) (07/29/93)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Final Order Directing Entry of Judgment (Fed. Cl. No. 102-63) (07/29/93)

Short v. United States, Order re Prejudgment Interest on Damage Award (Fed. Cl. No. 102-63) (07/06/93)

Short v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 590 (1993)

Karuk Tribe v. United States, Order re Mots. to Intervene & Consolidate (Fed. Cl. No. 90-3993L) (01/04/93)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Interest (Cl. Ct. Nos. 102-63 & 460-78)(09/15/92)

Short v. United States, Hearing re EAJA (Cl. Cl. No. 102-63) (06/10/92)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, 25 Cl. Ct. 722 (1992)

Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)

Shermoen v. United States, Memo. Op. and Order (N.D. Cal. No. C-90-2460 WHO) (05/23/91)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Deadlines (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (02/15/90)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re EAJA Award (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (1990)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re Alter or Amend Judgment (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (03/17/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Scheduling (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (10/03/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Qualification of McClung, etc. Members (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/31/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Motion to Disqualify HEWM (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/25/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Denial of Group Damages Award (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/25/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Clarification re Manifest Injustice (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/12/89)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re Alter or Amend Judgment (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (03/17/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Qualification of 19 Plaintiffs (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (02/17/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Eligibility Standards B-E (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (01/25/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Standards B, C (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (01/25/89)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Standard B (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (01/25/89)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re Appellants' Motion to Dismiss Appeals as Moot is Granted (9th Cir. No. 88-2834) (12/27/88)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, Order re. Case Dismissed as Moot (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (12/21/88)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, Order re. Bosco legislation renders case moot (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (11/15/88)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, Order After Status Conference (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (09/02/88)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re Conditional Approval of the Compliance Plan (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (06/20/88)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re March 1, 1988 Order on Entitlement (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (06/14/88)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Scheduling Order (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (06/01/88)

Puzz v. United States Dep't of the Interior, Order re HVT's Motion for Stay of 04/10/88 Order (N.D Cal. C 80-2908 TEH) (05/26/88)

Puzz v. Dep’t of Interior, Order re. CMSJ, 1988 WL 188462 (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (04/08/88)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Disputed Issues of Material Fact (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (03/10/88)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Entitlement Under Manifest Injustice Exception (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (03/01/88)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Briefing Schedule (Cl. Ct. 102-63) (07/29/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Motion to Preclude Filing Adt'l Responses (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/21/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Opinion 1 of 5 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/14/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Opinion 2 of 5 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/14/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Opinion 3 of 5 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/14/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Opinion 4 of 5 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/14/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Opinion 5 of 5 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/14/87)

Short v. United States,12 Cl. Ct. 36 (03/17/87)

Ackley v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, 12 Cl. Ct. 306 (1987)

Short v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 36 (1987)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Right to Examine Witnesses (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (01/08/87)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Motion for Status Conference (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (10/29/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Claim of Indian Blood from Terminated Tribes (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/11/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Dismissal of Certain Deceased Claimants (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (07/10/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Def's MSJ (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (06/19/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re D&E Plaintiff's w/non-Plaintiff Parents (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (06/13/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Clarification Standard B (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (06/06/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re HVT Mots. for Partial SJ & Joint Responses (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/28/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Clarification & Reconsideration (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/27/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Tribe's Motion to Compel Discovery (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (05/23/86)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Substitute for Deceased Plaintiffs (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (04/10/85)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Schedule of Proceedings (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (03/29/85)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Order re Eddy's Motion for Change of Attorney (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (03/29/85)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Order re. 1st Amended Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. C-80-2908 TEH) (12/19/84)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Memo. Opinion and Order (N.D. Cal. No. C-80-2908 TEH) (10/02/84)

Short v. United States and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Ruling on Abatement & Section 407 (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (09/20/84)

Short v United States, 719 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Short v. United States, Opinion Defining Indians of Reservation (Ct. Cl. 102-63) (03/31/82)

Puzz v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Order and Opinion (N.D. Cal. No. C 80-2908 TEH) (02/26/82)

Short v. United States, 661 F.2d 150 (Ct. Cl. 1981)

Short v. United States, Opinion re Res Judicata; Substitution of Parties, etc. (Ct. Cl. No. 102-63) (07/25/80)

Short v. United States, Opinion re Political Question; Nonjusticiability, etc. (Ct. Cl. No. 102-63) (07/25/80)

Beaver v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Judgment (N.D. Cal. No. C-79-2925 SW) (02/11/80)

Beaver v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Preliminary Inj. (N.D. Cal. No. C-79-2925 SW) (10/30/79)

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, 596 F.3d 435 (Ct. Cl. 1979)

Short v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 522 (1976)

Short v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 777 (1976)

Short v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 964 (1975)

Short v. United States, 486 F.2d 561 (Ct. Cl. 1973)

Short v. United States, 202 Ct. Cl. 870 (1973)

Short v. United States, Order re Motion to Dismiss (Cl. Ct. No. 102-63) (04/24/64)

Rights of Indians in the Hoopa Valley Reservation, California, 65 I.D. 59, 2 Op. Sol. Int. 1814 (02/05/58)

Anchor 1

Anchor 2

Anchor 3

bottom of page