Case: THE LUMMI TRIBE OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Lummi Tribe of Indians v. United States
Decision Date: 1972-03-17
Docket Number: Appeal No. 4-71; Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 110
Citation: 197 Ct. Cl. 780
Volume: 197
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE LUMMI TRIBE OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Before Davis, Acting Chief Judge, Laeamoee and Duefee, Senior Judges, ColliNS, SkeltoN, Nichols and Ktnsrzia, Judges.
Pages: 780–782

Head Matter:
THE LUMMI TRIBE OF INDIANS v. THE UNITED STATES
Appeal No. 4-71
Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 110
5 Ind. Cl. Comm. 525
10 Ind. Cl. Comm. 286
13 Ind. Cl. Comm. 583
16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 526
21 Ind. Cl. Comm. 408
24 Ind. Cl. Comm. 21
[Decided March 17, 1972]
'Frederick W. Post, attorney of record, for The Lummi Tribe of Indians.
Craig A. Decker, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Kent Frizzell, for the United States.
Before Davis, Acting Chief Judge, Laeamoee and Duefee, Senior Judges, ColliNS, SkeltoN, Nichols and Ktnsrzia, Judges.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam
: After our decision in Lummi Tribe of Indians v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 753 (1967), the Indian Claims Commission increased its valuation of the awarded area from $52,067 to $90,634.13, an increase of some 74%. The Indians appeal again, arguing that this final valuation was too low, but it is clear to us that the Commission gave full consideration to, and took account of, our comments on the prior appeal, and that its ultimate finding on valuation is wholly reasonable and adequately supported. The Tribe also seeks to reargue two points decided against it in the prior appeal — the extent of the acreage to which it is entitled and the question of fair and honorable dealings — but there is no adequate basis for going behind those rulings which are the law of the ease. There is also an effort to raise, for the first time on this appeal, the same issue as to Article 7 of the Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 927, 929 (18'55), which, is discussed in Suquamish Tribe of Indians v. United States, ante, at 775, also decided this day. For the reasons given in that opinion, the contention must also be rejected here.
Affirmed.