fishing rights cases were applicable to this ease because the right to travel upon public highways was “sufficiently comparable” to the right to fish. Id. at 425. Therefore, the district court held that the “in common with” language “unambiguously ... gives the Yakama Indian Nation the right to exercise its nonexclusive rights without being subject to licensing or permitting fees.” Id. at 426. However, the fishing rights cases have not found the “in common with” language to support the conclusion that Indians may exercise treaty rights without paying generally applicable fees. In each case involving the Treaty fishing rights, the Supreme Court has held that the Yakama Indians have special fishing rights “despite” the phrase “in common with.” E.g. Tulee, 315 U.S. at 684, 62 S.Ct. at 864 (<HOLDING>). In these eases, the Supreme Court looked at
holding that the state could not require yakama indians to purchase licenses for using traditional nets to catch fish holding that the parties purchase agreement did not require a showing of prejudice for plaintiff to assert that defendant waived its claim for indemnification holding that a contract for sale of real estate was not void where the broker failed to obtain the required licenses holding government could be liable for breach of a contractual obligation to purchase insurance for plaintiff holding that bostons fish pier is not a traditional public forum