Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
TONASKET v. WASHINGTON et al., 1973 — 411 U.S. 451 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
TONASKET v. WASHINGTON et al.
411 U.S. 45136 L. Ed. 2d 385·Supreme Court of the United States·1973
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
TONASKET v. WASHINGTON et al.
No. 71-1031.
Argued December 12-13,1972
Decided April 24,1973
Robert L. Pirtle argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Slade Gorton, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Timothy R. Malone, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorney General.
Alvin J. Ziontz argued the cause and filed a brief for Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation et al. as amici curiae.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Frizzell, Harry R. Sachse, and Edmund B. Clark for the United States; by Charles A. Hobbs and Richard A. Baenen for the National Congress of American Indians; by David H. Getches for the Native American Rights Fund; and by Pearson, Yurok Indian and Trader on the Hoopa Reservation.
William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorney General of Washington, and Eugene F. Corrigan filed a brief for Multistate Tax Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of §§ 6 and 7 of c. 157, 1972 Extraordinary Session Laws of the State of Washington, and this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, ante, p. 164.