Cluster 392115

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 278 (6th Cir. 1981).

But “[t]he right of the Indians to engage in gill net fishing is not absolute.” United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1981).

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.1981) (citing Michigan v. LeBlanc, 399 Mich. 31, 62 , 248 N.W.2d 199 (Sup.Ct.1976), for the least-restrictive-alternative factor; however, LeBlanc did not articulate a least-restrictive-alternative factor but rather utilized two "necessary” factors); see also Lac Courte Oreilles, 668 F.Supp. at 1236 (adopting a least-restrictive-alternative factor because the "state does not appear to contest this standard, and the least …

Stritmatter, 102 Wash.2d at 521-22 , 688 P.2d 499 (citing United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.1981)); accord Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep't of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 175 , 97 S.Ct. 2616 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977).

Stritmatter, 102 Wn.2d at 521 -22 (citing United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1981)); accord Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Game, 433 U.S. 165, 175 , 97 S. Ct. 2616 , 53 L.

On appeal, this court affirmed in part, holding that “[t]he treaty-guaranteed fishing rights preserved to the Indians in the 1836 Treaty . . . continue to the present day as federally created and federally protected rights.” United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d at 278.

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.1981).

To demonstrate that any regulation meets appropriate standards, the State “must demonstrate that its regulation is a reasonable and necessary conservation measure and that its application to the Indians is necessary in the interest of conservation.” Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194, 207 , 95 S.Ct. 944, 952 , 43 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975) (emphasis in original); see also Washington v. Washington Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. at 682-83 , 99 S.Ct. at 3072-73 ; United…

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981). 5 As a result of this decision, in the fall of 1983, three Indian tribes filed a motion in federal district court to allocate fishing resources between themselves and Michigan.

LCO IV, 668 F.Supp. 1233, 1241 ; United States v. State of Washington, 520 F.2d at 686 (where tribes responsibly insure that conservation and public health and safety goals are being met, legitimate interests of state are not contravened); United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.1981) (state may regulate tribal members’ fishing only in “the absence of effective Indian tribal self-regulation”).

LCO IV, 668 F.Supp. 1233, 1241 ; United States v. State of Washington, 520 F.2d at 686 (where tribes responsibly insure that conservation and public health and safety goals are being met, legitimate interests of state are not contravened); United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1981) (state may regulate tribal members' fishing only in "the absence of effective Indian tribal self-regulation").

The tribes argue that the state first must show necessity, irreparable harm, and the absence of effective tribal self-regulation before it may regulate a specific usufructuary activity, relying on United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.1981).

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d at 279; accord, Puyallup III, 433 U.S. at 175 .

In its latest consideration of Michigan, the Sixth Circuit affirmed this view, stating: "The treaty-guaranteed fishing rights preserved to the Indians in the 1836 Treaty, including the aboriginal rights to engage in gill-net fishing, continue to the present day as federally created and federally protected rights." United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981). 11 The doctrine of collateral estoppe…

In its latest consideration of Michigan, the Sixth Circuit affirmed this view, stating: “The treaty-guaranteed fishing rights preserved to the Indians in the 1836 Treaty, including the aboriginal rights to engage in gill-net fishing, continue to the present day as federally created and federally protected rights.” United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981). .

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1981); 520 F.Supp. 207, 211 (W.D.Mich.1981); 471 F.Supp. 192 , 281 (W.D.Mich.1979). (3) That the traditional standards for granting a preliminary injunction set forth in Mason County Medical Ass’n. v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977), have been met.

United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1981); 520 F.Supp. 207, 211 (W.D.Mich.1981); 471 F.Supp. 192 , 281 (W.D.Mich.1979). (3) That the traditional standards for granting a preliminary injunction set forth in Mason County Medical Ass'n. v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256 , 261 (6th Cir. 1977), have been met.

See United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192, 240 (W.D.Mich.1979) (obligatory removal treaties use language obligating tribes to remove and set deadline for removal), aff'd in part, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

See United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192 (W.D.Mich.1979), mod. in part, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

See United States v. State of Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981). 15 The district court gave an incorrect instruction regarding the quantum of proof required to establish fraud by instructing the jury that fraud may be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

See United States v. State of Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

See also United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192, 213 (W.D.Mich. 1979), aff'd, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1981): ... [N]ot every treaty of cession leaves the Indian grantor with reserved fishing rights.

See also United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192, 213 (W.D.Mich.1979), aff ’d, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1981): ... [N]ot every treaty of cession leaves the Indian grantor with reserved fishing rights.

See Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game ( Puyallup III ), 433 U.S. 165, 175-76 , 97 S.Ct. 2616, 2622-23 , 53 L.Ed.2d 667 (1977); see also United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

See Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game (Puyallup III), 433 U.S. 165, 175-76 , 97 S.Ct. 2616, 2622-23 , 20 L.Ed.2d 689 (1977); see also United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).

See also United States v. Michigan, 623 F.2d 448, 450 (6th Cir.1980) (upholding Interior regulations issued pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 9, governing treaty fishing rights in the Great Lakes), remand order continued as modified, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 971 , 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981).