This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The case has significant negative citation history - while it may still be narrow law (and I am not sure of even that), I think it might be deceptive to say that it has held for 30 years. Is anyone more familiar with this case in a position to set me straight here? Editor Emeritus 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is accurate to say that this case has held. It is a case of continuing jurisdiction with multiple subproceedings being filed annually to fine tune it or interpret the many areas where the original decision was not able to provide guidance. Today, the orginal decision has been extended to shellfish harvest and its principals have been applied to off-reservation treaty hunting as well. It is alive and well. [Prof. Ron Whitener, Univ. of Washington Law School]