top of page


General Hoopa Cases

  • 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). 

  • 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). 

  • 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).

  • 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., 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).

  • 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). 

  • 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). 

  • 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). 

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

  • 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. 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). 

  • 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). 

  • 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). 

  • 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). 

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). 

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

  • 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)

Anchor 1
Anchor 2
Anchor 3
bottom of page