Ramsey v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
302 F.3d 1074 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 812 (2003)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Kip Ramsey (plaintiff) was a member of the federally recognized Yakama Indian Tribe (Yakama). Ramsey owned a logging company that transported timber cut on the Yakama reservation to off-reservation markets using public roads. Ramsey’s company used heavy, diesel-powered trucks. The Internal Revenue Code imposed taxes both for the use of diesel fuel on public roads and on trucks above a certain weight, which Ramsey’s trucks exceeded. Ramsey paid these taxes to the federal government (defendant). Article III of a treaty entered into by the United States and the Yakama in 1855—and still in effect—provided that the Yakama were to have free access to public highways and “the right in common with citizens of the United States to travel upon all public highways.” Ramsey successfully used the treaty in litigation against Washington state to exempt himself from state-imposed taxes. Ramsey sued the United States for a refund of the diesel-fuel and heavy-truck taxes he had paid. The district court ruled in favor of Ramsey, deferring to the ruling in the prior litigation in which Ramsey successfully argued that the treaty exempted him from state taxation. The United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Trott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.