Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Before Hon. WALTER J. CUMMINGS, Chief Judge Hon. WILBUR F. PELL, JR., Circuit Judge Hon. PAUL C. WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge*fn*
The opinion in the above-captioned case issued by this court on January 25, 1983 should be amended as follows:
1. The caption of case nos. 78-2398 and 78-2443 is hereby amended to reflect that the name of the named defendant-appellee, cross-appellant is "Lester P. Voigt" rather than "Lester P. Voight."
2. Page 3, line 5 -- 1942 should read 1842.
3. Page 14, line 11 from bottom -- Nielson should read Nielsen. 4. Page 16, line 17 from bottom -- Tulec v. Washington should read Tulee v. Washington.
5. At page 24, last paragraph, line 4, the word "with" is amended to reach "which." The entire line therefore reads: "United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), on which the"
6. At page 45-46, the last paragraph of the opinion is amended to read as follows:
Having considered all the arguments urged by the parties, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the continued existence of the LCO's usufructuary rights is reversed. The exercise of these rights is limited to those portions of the ceded lands that are not privately owned. n.14 The case is remanded to the district judge with instructions to enter judgment for the LCO band on that aspect of the case and for further consideration as to the permissible scope of State regulation over the LCO's exercise of their usufructuary rights.
7. The following footnote 14 is added to the opinion:
This court has understood the LCO band's argument to be limited to those portions of the ceded lands that have not passed into private ownership. To the extent that the LCO band might be claiming a broader right -- such as the right to engage in usufructuary activities on land that is privately owned but utilized for sport hunting and fishing -- we find that the claim is inconsistent with the Indians' understanding at the time of the cession treaties that their rights could be limited if the land were needed for white settlement, see Section I, supra.
On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed in the above-entitled cause by defendants and cross-appellants, no judge in active service has requested a vote thereon, and all of the judges on ...