United States v. Washington
E551693
United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Washington canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5833359 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Washington Context triple: [Puyallup Tribe, involvedIn, United States v. Washington]
-
A.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
D.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
E.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad
Puerto Rico v. Branstad is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal courts can compel state governors to comply with interstate extradition requests under the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Washington Target entity description: United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
-
A.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
International Shoe Co. v. Washington is a landmark 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the modern "minimum contacts" standard for determining when a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
-
D.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
E.
Puerto Rico v. Branstad
Puerto Rico v. Branstad is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal courts can compel state governors to comply with interstate extradition requests under the Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Indian law case
ⓘ
federal court case ⓘ fisheries law case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| affects |
state regulatory authority over fisheries
ⓘ
tribal sovereignty over natural resources ⓘ |
| alsoKnownAs | Boldt Decision NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| appealTo | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| basedOn |
Stevens Treaties
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Treaty of Medicine Creek NERFINISHED ⓘ Treaty of Neah Bay NERFINISHED ⓘ Treaty of Point Elliott NERFINISHED ⓘ Treaty of Point No Point NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| category |
United States District Court case for the Western District of Washington
ⓘ
United States Native American case law ⓘ United States environmental case law ⓘ |
| citation | 384 F. Supp. 312 ⓘ |
| clarified |
meaning of the phrase "in common with" in Stevens Treaties
ⓘ
scope of tribal co-management authority over fisheries ⓘ |
| court | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1974-02-12 ⓘ |
| defendant | State of Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| followedBy |
United States v. Washington (culverts subproceeding)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
subsequent enforcement and implementation subproceedings ⓘ |
| geographicScope |
Pacific Northwest
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Washington State NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| heldThat |
state regulation of treaty fishing must meet strict standards and cannot abrogate treaty rights
ⓘ
treaty fishing rights are reserved rights not granted rights ⓘ treaty tribes are entitled to up to 50 percent of harvestable fish in their usual and accustomed fishing grounds ⓘ |
| impact |
significantly shaped U.S. Indian law
ⓘ
significantly shaped natural resource management in the Pacific Northwest ⓘ strengthened enforcement of Native American treaty rights ⓘ |
| involves |
Pacific Northwest Native American tribes
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Washington State fisheries regulations ⓘ |
| judge | George Hugo Boldt NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal courts NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| legalArea |
Native American law
ⓘ
fisheries management ⓘ natural resources law ⓘ treaty rights ⓘ |
| plaintiff | United States of America NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| recognized | tribal rights to fish at usual and accustomed places ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| resultedIn |
increased tribal participation in natural resource governance
ⓘ
major restructuring of fisheries management in Washington State ⓘ recognition of tribal co-management of fisheries with the State of Washington ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | treaty-secured off-reservation fishing rights ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 20th century ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. Washington Description of subject: United States v. Washington is a landmark federal court case that affirmed and clarified Pacific Northwest Native American tribes’ treaty fishing rights, significantly shaping U.S. Indian law and natural resource management.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.