United States v. City of Tacoma, Washington

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON.

OPINION

The United States brought this action, on behalf of itself and as trustee for the Skokomish Indian Tribe (the “Tribe”) and its members, asking for declaratory judgment to invalidate the 1921 condemnation proceedings brought by the City of Tacoma (“Tacoma”) and seeking to void land transfers made by the Tribe long thought by Tacoma to be settled. After cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted the United States’ motion, invalidating the condemnation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

*576 I

A. Factual History

1. Funk Condemnation Proceedings

In 1920, Tacoma began plans to develop the Cushman hydroelectric power project on the North Fork of the Skokomish River. 1 To that end, Tacoma instituted condemnation proceedings in state court, entitled Tacoma v. Funk, No. 1615 (Wash.Super.Ct.), against private landowners with property in the area of the proposed project. The landowners included five tribal members who held allotted lands. 2 Three allotments were held in fee by the tribal members with a reversionary interest in the United States. Two were held in…

dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority that, as a general rule, we regard a judicial interpretation of a statute as an “authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction,” Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 , 114 S.Ct. 1510 , 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994), I believe the instant case presents exactly the kind of “rare case” which the Court in United States v. Estate of Donnelly recognized might be exempted from the full retroactive effect of a decision construing a statute. See United States v. Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286, 295 , 90 S.Ct. 1033 , 25 L.Ed.2d 312 (1970). I would hold that in cases such as the instant one, in which the decision to be retroactively applied announced a “new” interpretation of the statute, and in which both compelling equitable considerations as well as principles of finality weigh against retroactive application of the decision, the general rule must give way to “familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.” See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229…

332 F.3d 574 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-35070. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued October 16, 2001. Submitted February 4, 2003. Filed June 4, 2003. Kenneth G. Kieffer and Timothy L. Ashcraft, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, PLLC, Tacoma, WA, for the appellant. John H. Stahr, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, WA, D.C., for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge. Presiding, D.C. No. CV-96-5499 FDB. Before: FERGUSON, KLEINFELD, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON. OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge. 1 The United States brought this action, on behalf of itself and as trustee for the Skokomish Indian Tribe (the "Tribe") and its members, asking for declaratory judgment to invalidate the 1921 condemnation proceedings brought by the City of Tacoma ("Tacoma") and seeking to void land transfers made by the Tribe long thought by Tacoma to be settled. After cross motions for summary…