. Lewis v. The Sac and Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Housing Authority, 896 P.2d at 505, concluded that Oklahoma courts have constitutionally-vested concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts to entertain any federal-law claim which has not been explicitly withdrawn by Congress and held the Oklahoma courts have jurisdiction over a contract dispute between an Indian home buyer and an Indian housing authority.

. Accord, Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148-149, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 1270, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973), wherein the Court said absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries generally have been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State.

. The undisputed facts in Hoover I and on summary judgment below are that on April 3, 1990, the Tribe executed a note wherein the Tribe promised to pay Hoover $142,500.00 as consideration for the purchase of 5,000 shares of common stock in Clinton-Sherman Aviation, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation. The Tribe also executed a security agreement, pledging the stock as collateral for the note, and delivered the promissory note and security agreement to Hoover’s office in Oklahoma City. The Tribe defaulted on the note and Hoover sold the collateral at a public sale, conducted on November 30, 1990. Being the highest and best bidder, Hoover purchased the stock for One Dollar and sued the Tribe for the deficiency of $142,499.00.

.Apparently, neither the decision to buy the Clinton-Sherman Aviation, Inc. nor the contracts to accomplish the purchase were subject to approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior of the United States. Hence, we view the Tribe’s economic activity to *83be independent of, rather than dependent upon, the protection of the federal government.

. Questions determined in a former appeal are binding in a subsequent appeal under the "settled law of the case" doctrine. Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., 904 P.2d 83, 88-89 (Okla. 1995).

. If an appellate court determines that its former decision in the same case is a gross or manifest injustice, it may review and reverse the erroneous decision, notwithstanding the "settled law of the case” doctrine. Wade v. Hope & Killingswortk, 89 Okla. 64, 213 P. 549, 550-551 (1923).

. Ordinarily, the "settled law of the case” will not be reviewed on a subsequent appeal where the facts are the same as on the former appeal. Smith v. Owens, 397 P.2d 673, 675 and 678-679 (Okla. 1963).

. The Kiowa Tribe is one of 36 tribes listed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the U.S. Department of Interior in the Federal Register, vol. 44, p. 7235.

. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. at 71, 98 S.Ct. at 1684, observing that efforts of the federal judiciary to enforce the provisions of the Indian Civil Rights Act "in a civil context” might "substantially interfere” with tribal self-government, said:

Congress retains authority to authorize civil actions for injunctive or other relief to redress violations of § 1302, in the event the tribes themselves prove deficient in applying and enforcing its substantive provisions. But unless and until Congress makes clear its intention to permit the additional intrusion on tribal sovereignty that adjudication of such actions in a federal forum would represent, we are constrained to find that § 1302 does not impliedly authorize actions for declaratory or injunctive relief against either the tribe or its officers.

The Tribe urged that Hoover I was confused by the federal case law that permits state courts to hear suits against a federally recognized Indian tribe for equitable or declaratory relief from disputes among the triad of federal/tribal/state sovereigns so long as the state-court decree does not infringe upon tribal self-government or sovereignty, such as Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). The instant jurisdictional challenge does not arise out of the state's attempt to intrude upon federal/tribal relations, rather it arises out of a state-law contractu*84al relationship outside the federal government’s superintendence.

. Justice Stevens relied on United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940) for the proposition that an Indian tribe is immune from suit for damages absent congressional consent. United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. held that 34 Stat. 137 authorized suit against the United States, on behalf of the dependent Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, only in the federal court in Indian Territory. It deferred to Congress' authority to specify the federal court where a damage suit against the tribes might be brought and refused to enforce a Missouri money judgment against the tribes, but it did not hold that a federally recognized Indian tribe is absolutely immune from suit for money judgment.

. The promissory note and security agreement provide that nothing "subjects or limits the sovereign rights of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma." Neither the note nor security agreement, however, unequivocally declare that the Tribe is immune from damages suit in state court. Rather, the security agreement expressly provides, in part VII. Remedies, that the "Lender may ... exercise any and all rights and remedies provided in the Uniform Commercial Code of the state in which the Lender is located....”

. In Hoover I, we considered the Tribe’s legal argument in support of dismissal — that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts without its consent because Congress has not vested the Oklahoma courts with jurisdiction over a federally recognized Indian tribe. Hoover I decided that Oklahoma courts have jurisdiction over the subject contract, even though the Tribe argued it did not consent to suit. On summary judgment, the district court was bound by Hoover I. Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, 200 Okla. 157, 201 P.2d 225, 227 (1947).

. The concept of tribal sovereignty is not derived from our federal constitution. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. at 56, 98 S.Ct. at 1675-76.

. A federally recognized Indian tribe is a resident of the state where the tribe is located, for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, and may not sue the state in federal court without the state's express consent. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996).

. We recognize the Tribe’s immunity defense arises under federal law, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985), but Hoover has no federal claim.

. Fundamental jurisdictional issues will be considered at any time. Wilson v. Harlow, 860 P.2d 793, 797 (Okla. 1993).

. Hoover I, 909 P.2d at 62.

. Because we are not satisfied that our former decision constitutes gross or manifest injustice, the exception to the "settled law of the case" doctrine is not operative. This Court and the court below are hound by Hoover I. See, footnotes 5-7 supra.

. In the early case of The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. I, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831), the Court concluded that an Indian tribe was not a foreign state and could not maintain an action against the State of Georgia, and hence the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. A year later the same Georgia law was challenged in Worcester v. The State of Georgia. The Worcester Court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the argument that neither the courts of Georgia nor the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction over activity that occurred within the territory of the Cherokee nation.

. R. Strickland, Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 Edition), p. 2, explains:

"It is ... a mistake to view Indian law without reference to the varying times in which particular doctrines or statutory provisions were developed. Without an historical perspective, Indian law can be a mystifying collection of inconsistencies and anachronisms. The first step toward order and understanding in this field is to recognize the historical context of the different statutes and cases.”

As will be discussed, the State of Oklahoma has a unique history compared to her sister states in regard to relations with Indian tribes residing within the boundaries of Oklahoma.

. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 31 U.S. at 542; and U.S. Const., art. 1, § 8.

. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 31 U.S. at 558-559. Worcester explained that the notion of the dependent Indian nations with retained original natural right of self-government within Indian country subject to the dominant power of the United States Congress, rested upon the European principles of discovery — 1) that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made against all other European governments; 2) that title consummated by possession gave the exclusive right to purchase the soil from the aboriginal occupants or the occupants by virtue of a discovery made before the memory of man; and 3) that the independence of the original occupants was not surrendered by selling the soil to the European discoverer and seeking its protection.

. Worcester v. The State of Georgia, 31 U.S. at 562.

. Accord, Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 1361, 51 L.Ed.2d 660 (1977), wherein the Court observed Congress’ power to abrogate Indian treaties.

. The European discovery principles of retained original natural right of self-government were embodied in the 1802 act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the frontiers as discussed in Worcester and in the Indian Removal Act of 1830, whereby Indian tribes east of the Mississippi River were to be relocated to lands in Indian country. The boundaries of Indian country were fixed west of the Mississippi river, not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana or Arkansas Territory and not within any state to which Indian title has not been extinguished, 4 Stat. 729. The Stokes Commission mapped Indian Territory, most of what would become the state of Oklahoma, divided the mapped-out land, and assigned the divided Indian Territory for the use of various Indian tribes or nations.

.On October 21, 1867, a treaty of peace was made between the United States and the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes at Medicine Lodge Creek in Kansas. The tribes agreed to a confederation and were given a reservation in what later became the State of Oklahoma. 15 Stat. 581, 589.

. 26 Stat. 81.

. Indian country was not excluded from the territorial limits nor jurisdiction of Oklahoma Territory as it was from the boundaries of Montana Territory, 13 Stat. 85, 86, and Idaho Territory, 12 Stat. 808, 809., until the tribe(s) agreed to be included, and the territories of Montana, 13 Stat. at 91, and Idaho, 12 Stat. at 814, were required to "faithfully and rigidly observe” the treaties, laws, and other engagements between the United States and the Indian tribes.

. 26 Stat. at 84, § 5. In contrast, Congress did not provide for the Indian inhabitants to participate in the government for the Territory of New Mexico, 9 Stat. 446, 449, nor the Territory of Idaho, 12 Stat. 808, 810, where the franchise was extended only to free white male inhabitants.

. The Oklahoma territorial district courts were vested with exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the territorial boundaries and all civil cases between citizens of the United States and citizens or persons residing or found in the territory, 26 Stat. at 86, § 9, and criminal offenses and civil controversies between members or citizens of one tribe against members or citizens of other tribes, as if they were citizens of the United States. Id. at 88, § 12. Controversies between Indians of the same tribe while sustaining their tribal relations were excepted from the court’s jurisdiction, but persons of Indian blood had the right to invoke the aid of the courts for protection of person or property. Id.

. 26 Stat. at 99-100, § 43.

. Congress originally established the United States court in Indian Territory on March 1, 1889. 25 Stat. 783. The court had no jurisdiction over controversies between persons of Indian blood only, Id., at 784, and Indians, not citizens of the United States, were excluded as competent jurors in cases involving citizens of the United States, Id., at 786. The Organic Act extended the jurisdiction of the United States court in Indian Territory specifically over all cases on contracts entered into by citizens of any tribe or nation with citizens of the United States in good faith, for valuable consideration and in accordance with tribal law, and such contracts were deemed to be valid and enforceable by the courts. 26 Stat. at 93-94, § 29. The court had the power of attachment of improvements on tribal owned property made by mining persons or entities, railroads, or industries under lease or permission of Indian law or federal law, but all other improvements on tribal property was excepted from attachment. Id. at 95, § 31. Execution was withheld for sale of improvements on tribal owned property except where attachment was allowed. Id. at 96, § 31. Judicial tribunals of the Indian nations retained exclusive jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases arising in the country “in which members of the nation by nativity or adoption shall be the only parties,” Id. at 94, § 30, as nothing in the act was to interfere with the power of tribes or nations to punish their own members. Id. at 96, § 31.

.Concurring in Worcester, Justice McLean observed that the occupancy of Indian soil was never assumed, except upon a basis of contract and payment of valuable consideration; that the Indians’ right of occupancy has never been questioned, even though the fee in the soil has been considered in the government; and, that all the rights which belong to self-government, attributes of sovereignty, have been recognized as vested in the Indians, but at no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognized as existing in the Indians. Further, Justice McLean viewed the exercise of the power of self-government by the Indians, within a state, as undoubtedly tem-poraiy, in light of the settled policy of the government in the extinguishment of their title and emphasized that the act of 1802, to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the frontiers, by its own *88terms was not to be construed to prevent trade and intercourse with Indians living on lands surrounded by settlements of citizens of the United States and being within the ordinary jurisdiction of any of the individual states. 31 U.S. at 579, 592-593.

. 24 Stat. 388 and 26 Stat. 794, acts to allot land in severalty to Indians on the various Indian reservations and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States over the Indians.

. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).

. 31 Stat. 677.

. R. Strickland, Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 Ed.) p. 774.

. 30 Stat. 495. The Curtis Act, intended to expedite the allotment process, Id. at 497, provided for the making of the rolls of citizenship of the Five Civilized Tribes, Id. at 502-504, and settlement of tribal membership claims, Id. at 496; abolished all tribal courts in Indian Territory, transferred all civil and criminal cases to the United States court in Indian Territory, Id. at 504-505, vested that court with exclusive jurisdiction to determine title and ownership of Indian land, Id. at 496, and required that the tribe be made a party if property of the tribe might be affected, Id. at 495-496; defined "officer" to include officers of tribes for certain criminal prosecution purposes, Id. at 495; and declared that tribal laws shall not be enforced at law or in equity by the United States court in Indian territory, Id. at 504.

. Congress did not ratify the agreement with the Cherokee Tribe which provided that the Cherokees would never be a part of any state without their consent. A. Maxwell, The Sequo-yah Constitutional Convention (1953) p. 27.

. C. Allen, The Sequoyah Movement (1925) p. 44.

. The Atoka Agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes provided:

It is further agreed, in view of the modification of legislative authority and judicial jurisdiction herein provided, and the necessity of continuance of the tribal governments so modified, in order to carry out the requirements of this agreement, that the same shall continue for the period of eight years from the fourth day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. This stipulation is made in the belief that the tribal governments so modified will prove so satisfactory that there will be no need or desire for further change till the lands now occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes shall, in the opinion of Congress, be prepared for admission as a State to the Union. But this provision shall not be construed to be in any respect an abdication by Congress of power at any time to make needful rules and regulations respecting said tribes.

30 Stat. at 512.

.34 Stat. 137, considered in United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., footnote 10, supra. The legislation provided that upon dissolution of the tribes, tribal lands were not to become public lands nor property of the United States, but were to be held in trust by the United States for the use and benefit of the "Indians respectively comprising each of the tribes”, Id. at 148; and, "tribal existence” and "tribal governments” were to continue for all purposes authorized by law, but tribal legislatures could meet no more than 30 days in any one year and tribal laws were invalid unless approved by the President of the United States and contracts involving tribal funds or any other tribal property were invalid without presidential approval. It closed the rolls of the tribes as of December 1, 1905, Id. at 137, to be completed as of March 4, 1907, at Id. at 138; abolished tribal taxes as of December 31, 1905, Id. at 141; subjected tribal officers to prosecution for the value of tribal property not reported to the Secretary of the Interior upon dissolution of the tribes, Id. at 141; directed the Secretary of the Interior to assume control of the Indian schools, Id. at 140, to take possession of all buildings used for tribal government or other tribal purposes, Id. at 143, and to bring suit in the United States courts in Indian Territory on behalf of the tribes for the collection of moneys or recovery of land claimed by any of the tribes, Id. at 144; restricted allotted lands for a period of 25 years and upon removal of the restricted subjected the allotted lands to taxation, Id. at 144; authorized construction of public highways on every section line, to be paid for by tribal funds under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior until inauguration of a state govemment, Id. at 145; and, provided that complaints against transmission companies and railroads were to be governed by 32 Stat. 44, 45, subject to "control by the future Territory or State within which the Indian Territory may be situated,” Id. at 146.

. Casey, O., And Justice for All (1989).

. 34 Stat. 267. Oklahoma's Enabling Act also enabled the admission of Arizona Territory and New Mexico Territory as a single state of the United States.

. 34 Stat. at 267-268, provided that nothing contained in the constitution for the State of Oklahoma would "be construed to limit or impair the rights of person or property pertaining to the Indians of said Territories (so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished) or to limit or affect the authority of the Government of the United States to make any law or regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights by treaties, agreement, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to make if this Act had never been passed.”

. Id. at 279.

. 25 Stat. 676, 677.

. 28 Stat. 107.

. 34 Stat. at 268.

. Id., at 270, provided that the state constitution must be republican in form and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color.

. The exception was eliminated in subsequent enabling legislation for the proposed states of New Mexico and Arizona, 36 Stat. 557.

. 25 Stat. at 677.

. Id., at 270.

. 25 Stat. at 677.

. 28 Stat. 107.

.36 Stat. at 559.

. See, footnote 42, supra. In providing for the final disposition of the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes, Congress provided that tribal lands would not become public lands nor property of the United States, 34 Stat. at 148. That is, the government would have to purchase Indian or tribal land. The Enabling Act does not provide that Indian nor tribal lands would become public lands. The disclaimer of jurisdiction in Art. 1, § 3, Okla. Const. — that until title to such public lands shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the jurisdiction, disposal, and control of the United States — simply does not reach Indian country.

.The extent to which a state constitution provides a barrier to the assumption of jurisdiction is a question for the particular state. Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 493, 99 S.Ct. 740, 757, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979). Montana's Enabling Act and Constitution reserved exclusive jurisdiction over the Indians within Indian lands to the United States. Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in Higgins v. Brown, 1 Okla.Crim. 33, 20 Okla. 355, 94 P. 703 (1908), discussed in great detail the implications of the Draper opinion. Higgins held that Congress, in § 7 of the Enabling Act, specifically and expressly excepted the lands referred to as exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States. The lands allotted to the Indians .were not among those mentioned. Accordingly, neither this state’s Enabling Act nor its Constitution deprived the state of the jurisdiction it had been given over ■ the Indian. More recently, this Court has determined that the disclaimer of right and title to land in the Okla. Const., art. 1, § 3, is proprietary in nature and the governmental interests and jurisdiction of the state is not disclaimed unless title to the land is affected. Currey v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 617 P.2d 177, 180 (Okla. 1980).

. 36 Stat. 1286.

. Id.

. Id., at 1287.

. Id.

. Disputes between members of the same tribe were excluded from the jurisdiction of the territorial courts by §§ 12 and 30 of the Organic Act, 26 Stat. 81.

. Congress halted its assimilation efforts in other states in 1934 with the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act. 48 Stat. 984, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 461, et seq. The Indian Reorganization Act specifically excluded tribes in Oklahoma from the provisions relating to self-government and tribal organization. Congressman William W. Hastings, a Cherokee from Tahleq-uah, Oklahoma, in opposition to the original bill, told the House that the Indians of Oklahoma were now governed by state and federal law, and subject to state and federal courts. 78 Cong. Rec. 9269-9270 and 11738-11739. Legislative history indicates that Oklahoma Indians were excluded because of the assimilation progress and to avoid any potential encouragement of returning to reservations. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439 (D.C.Cir. 1988).

. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 49 Stat. 1967, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 501, et seq., provided that any federally recognized Indian tribe residing in Oklahoma could organize for its common welfare and adopt a constitution and bylaws. It authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue a charter of incorporation to any such organized group, when ratified by a vote of the majority, which "may convey to the incorporated group, in addition to any powers which may properly be vested in a body corporate under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the right to participate in the revolving credit fund and to enjoy any other right or privilege secured to an organized Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 503. It authorized ten or more Indians residing in close proximity to form an association for the purpose of credit administration, production, marketing, consumers’ protection or land management, and "those matters not covered by the federal act, regulations or charters, would be governed by the laws of Oklahoma.” 25 U.S.C. § 504. And, it provided that the association could sue or be sued in any court, state or federal, in Oklahoma, having jurisdiction of the cause of action. 25 U.S.C. § 505.

. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. at 602-603, 63 S.Ct. at 1286. In deciding that an inheritance by an Indian may be subject to Oklahoma taxation, the Court observed that for a number of years Oklahoma Indian tribes had not been recognized as separate political entities with all the rights of independent status.

. 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321, et seq.

. P.L. 280 extended state civil jurisdiction over Indian country in Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, expressly providing that the state shall have jurisdiction over actions between Indians or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian country to the same extent that such state has jurisdiction over other causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.

. As to those states where Congress withheld jurisdiction over Indians and Indian country in the enabling legislation, Congress consented to the state assumption of jurisdiction in § 6 of P.L. 280, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1324. These were the so-called "disclaimer” states. Oklahoma was not a "disclaimer” state under § 6 of P.L. 280 as to controversies that arise in Indian country between Indians and non-Indians, pursuant to the organic and enabling legislation. Further, Oklahoma’s civil jurisdiction over Indians was more extensive than the jurisdiction granted in P.L. 280, which is restricted by a proviso codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1322(b) and (c). Section 1322 withholds probate jurisdiction, which Oklahoma had since statehood. R. Strickland, Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 Edition) p. 795.

As part of the Indian Civil Rights Act, Congress amended P.L. 280 to provide that Indians must consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by a disclaimer state. P.L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 77.

. Orme Lewis, Assistant Secretary of the Interi- or, advised a congressional committee that Oklahoma’s constitution expressly disclaims jurisdiction over Indian lands. Senate Report 699, 1953 U .S.Code Cong. & Adm.News, p. 2412. By letter, Lewis said:

It appears there are legal impediments to the transfer of jurisdiction over Indians ... the enabling acts for the following States, and in consequence the constitutions of these States, contain express disclaimers of jurisdiction. These states are Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. In these cases the enabling acts required the people of the proposed States expressly disclaim jurisdiction over Indian land and that, until Indian title was extinguished, the lands were to remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States. In each instance the State constitution contains an appropriate disclaimer. It would appear in each case, therefore, that the Congress would be required to give its consent and the people of each state would be required to amend the State constitution before the State legally could assume jurisdiction.

. Strickland, R., The Indians in Oklahoma, (University of Oklahoma Press, 1980) p. 76.

. Ahboah v. Housing Authority of the Kiowa Tribe of Indians, 660 P.2d 625, 630-631 (Okla. 1983) concluded that the Constitution of Oklahoma presented no barrier to the state’s authority over persons and property within its territorial boundaries, but that P.L. 280 preempted Oklahoma’s jurisdiction over disputes involving Indian trust property. Lewis v. Sac and Fox Tribe, 896 P.2d at 509, determined Ahboah was plainly overbroad and resulted in excessive abnegation of power.

. The Major Crimes Act of 1948 codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, defined “Indian country” and the definition has been applied to determine civil as well as criminal jurisdiction of state courts. DeCoteau v. District County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300, rehearing denied 421 U.S. 939, 95 S.Ct. 1667, 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975). R. Strickland, Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1982 Ed.) p. 777.

. See, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, -U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 948, 140 L.Ed.2d 30 (1998); and South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 789, 139 L.Ed.2d 773 (1998).

. Strate v. A-1 Contractors considered a question of tribal adjudicative authority over non-Indians: When an accident occurs on a portion of a public highway maintained by the State under a federally granted right-of-way over Indian reservation land, may tribal courts entertain a civil action against an allegedly negligent driver and the driver’s employer, neither of whom is a member of the tribe.

. Montana v. United States considered a question of tribal legislative authority over non-Indians: Whether the Crow Tribe of Indians had the power to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on lands within its reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians.

. Montana, 450 U.S. at 565-66, 101 S.Ct. at 1258.

. Strate, - U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1413.

. Id.

. Strate, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1415.

. Strate, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1416.

. Accord, United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 326-30, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1087-1090, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978), wherein the Court said Indians implicitly lost part of their sovereignty by virtue of their dependent status; the areas in which such implicit divestiture of sovereignty has been held to have occurred are those involving the relations between an Indian tribe and nonmembers of the tribe; rights of independent sovereign — rights which do not stem from the U .S. Constitution nor the federal government — are attributes of local self government when exercising their tribal functions, even though subject to the supreme legislative authority of the United States.

. Accord, Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama Docks Dept., 377 U.S. 184, 84 S.Ct. 1207, 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964), wherein the Court said that implicit in a state’s entering into federal-regulated economic activity is its consent to be bound by the regulation and subject to suit in federal court.

. Hoover v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma (Hoover II), 1998 OK 23, ¶ 2, — P.2d -.

. Id. at ¶ 38.

. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 1501-02, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969).

. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, note 27 infra; Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1677, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 810, 116 S.Ct. 57, 133 L.Ed.2d 21.

. Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, see note 4, supra; In re Greene, 980 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1992); Federico v. Capital Gaming Int’l Inc., 888 F.Supp. 354 (D.R.I. 1995); Elliott v. Capital Int'l Bank & Trust, Ltd., 870 F.Supp. 733 (E.D.Texas 1994), aff'd, 102 F.3d 549; North Sea Products Ltd. v. Clipper Seafoods, Co., 92 Wash.2d 236, 595 P.2d 938 (1979).

. The Major Crimes Act of 1948 is codified at 18 U.S.C.§ 1151.

. The Enabling Act of the State of Oklahoma provides in pertinent part:

"... That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, as at present described, may adopt a constitution and become the State of Oklahoma, as hereinafter provided: Provided, that nothing containing the said constitution shall be construed to limit or impair the rights of persons of property pertaining to the Indians of said Territories (so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished) or to limit or affect the authority of the Government of the United States to make any law or regulations respecting such Indians, their lands, property or other rights by treaties, agreement, law or otherwise, which it could have been competent to make if this Act had never passed....”

. The Okla. Const, art. 1, § 3 provides:

"The people inhabiting the State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title in or to any unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or nation; and that until the title to any such public land shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the jurisdiction, disposal, and control of the United States. Land belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the limits of the State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the land belonging to residents thereof. No taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use.”

.Section 2 of P.L. 280, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (1953) provides:

"Sec. 2. Title 18, United States Code, is hereby amended by inserting in chapter 53 thereof immediately after section 1161 a new section, to be designated as section 1162, as follows: § 1162. State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country

(a) Each of the States listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State, and the criminal laws of such State shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State:

State of Indian country affected

California ■ All Indian country within the State

Minnesota All Indian country within the State except the Red Lake Reservation

Nebraska All Indian country within the State

Oregon All Indian country within the State, except the Warm Springs Reservation

Wisconsin All Indian country within the State, except the Menominee Reservation

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the *98United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.

(c) The provisions of sections 1152 and 1153 of this chapter shall not be applicable within the areas of Indian country listed in subsection (a) of this section.”

. Id.

. Long v. Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, 171 Cal.Rptr. 733, 115 Cal.App.3d 853 (Cal.App.4. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831, 102 S.Ct. 129, 70 L.Ed.2d 109.

. Section 6 of P.L. 280, 67 Stat. 590 (1953), provides:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of any Enabling Act for the admission of a State, the consent of the United States is hereby given to the people of any State to amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case may be, to remove any legal impediment to the assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the provisions of this Act shall not become effective with respect to such assumption of jurisdiction by any such State until the people thereof have appropriately amended their State constitution or statutes as the case may be.”

. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1360(1984).

. Section 6 of Act, Aug. 15, 1953, see note 12, supra.

. Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 473-74, 99 S.Ct. 740, 748, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) [Statutory enactment.].

. State v. Haskins, 269 Mont. 202, 887 P.2d 1189, 1194 (1994) [Statutory enactment.].

. State v. Marek, 112 Idaho 860, 736 P.2d 1314, 1320 (1987) [Statutory enactment.].

. See note 7, supra.

. Act Aug. 15, 1953, c. 505, § 7, 67 Stat. 590, which gave consent of the United States to any other State not having jurisdiction with respect to criminal offenses or civil cause of action, or with respect to both, as provided for in this section and section 1162 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, to assume jurisdiction at such time and in such manner as the people of the State shall, by legislative action, obligate and bind the State to assumption thereof, was repealed by section 403(b) .of Pub.L. 90-284, Title IV, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 79, such repeal not to affect any cession of jurisdiction made pursuant to such section prior to its repeal.

. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, see note 27 infra, providing at p. 513, 111 S.Ct. at p. 911:

"Neither Moe nor Colville depended upon the State's assertion of jurisdiction under Public Law 280. Those cases stand for the proposition that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity does not prevent a State from requiring Indian retailers doing business on tribal reservations to collect a state-imposed cigarette tax on their sales to nonmembers of the Tribe. Colville’s only reference to Public Law 280 related to a concession that the statute did not furnish a basis for taxing sales to tribe members .... Public Law 280 merely permits a State to assume jurisdiction over 'civil causes of action’ in Indian country. We have never held that Public Law 280 is independently sufficient to confer authority on a State to extend the full range of its regulatory authority, including taxation, over Indians and Indian res-ervations_ Thus, it is simply incorrect to conclude that Public Law 280 was the essential (yet unspoken) basis for this Court’s decision in Colville.” . [Citations of authority omitted.]

. Title 57 O.S.1991 § 509.5 provides in pertinent part:

"Inmate work centers in Indian County land— Civil and criminal jurisdiction — Expiration, cancellation or termination of agreement A. Pursuant to applicable federal law, the State of Oklahoma assumes both the civil and criminal jurisdiction with respect to all criminal offenses and civil cause of actions over Indian Country land wherein the state has entered into an agreement with the applicable tribes or other appropriate authority for use of said land as an inmate work center as established in Section 563 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes

. Oklahoma Ass'n for Equitable Taxation v. City of Oklahoma City, 1995 OK 62, 901 P.2d 800, 804; TRW/Reda Pump v. Brewington, 1992 OK 31, 829 P.2d 15, 20; Farris v. Cannon, 1982 OK 88, 649 P.2d 529, 532; Moral Ins. Co. v. Cooksey, 1955 OK 179, 285 P.2d 223, 227.

. Title 68 O.S.Supp.1996 § 500.3(35), see note 31, infra.

. United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 46, 34 S.Ct. 1, 5-6, 58 L.Ed. 107 (1913); United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 449, 34 S.Ct. 396, 399, 58 L.Ed. 676 (1914); United States v.. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 538-39, 58 S.Ct. 286, 287-88, 82 L.Ed. 410(1938).

.The Supreme Court’s opinion in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 948, 140 L.Ed.2d 30 (1998) provides in its last paragraph:

"... [W]e are not free to ignore that requirement as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1151.

Whether the concept of Indian country should be modified is a question entirely for Congress.”

. The United States Const, art. 1, § 8, cl. 3 provides:

"Regulation of Commerce To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450, 464-65, 115 S.Ct. 2214, 2223, 132 L.Ed.2d 400 (1995) [Treaty provisions provided for tribal sovereignty within Indian country.]; Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114, 123, 113 S.Ct. 1985, 1991, 124 L.Ed.2d 30 (1993), rehearing denied, 509 U.S. 933, 113 S.Ct. 3066, 125 L.Ed.2d 748 (1993) [Federal District Court ordered on remand to consider factors relating to cause “against the backdrop of Indian sovereignty.”]; Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505, 111 S.Ct. 905, 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 (1991) [Suits against Indian tribes barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.].

. Title 25 U.S.C. § 3601 (1993) provides in pertinent part:

"The Congress finds and declares that—

(1) there is a govemment-to-govemment relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;

(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;

(3) Congress, through statutes, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;

... (5) tribal justice systems are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the political integrity of tribal governments ...”

. Title 68 O.S.Supp.1996 § 500.63 provides in pertinent part:

"... (A)(1) Some Indian tribes within the State of Oklahoma are engaged in the retail sales of motor fuels at locations within their sovereign territories; ...

(4) It is mutually beneficial to the State of Oklahoma and the federally recognized Indian tribes of this state, exercising their sovereign powers, to enter contracts as set forth in subsection B of this section, for the purpose of limiting litigation on the issue of state government taxation of motor fuel sales made by Indian tribes....

(C)(10) Both the State of Oklahoma and the accepting Indian tribe recognize, respect and accept the fact that under applicable laws each is a sovereign with dominion over their respective territories and governments. By entering into this proposed intergovernmental contractual relationship, neither the state nor the tribe has, in any way, caused the other’s sovereignty to be diminished....”

Title 68 O.S.Supp.1992 § 346 provides in pertinent part:

"... (A)(2) The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity prohibits the State of Oklahoma from bringing a lawsuit against an Indian tribe or nation to compel the tribe or nation to collect state taxes on sales made in Indian country to either members or nonmembers of the tribe or nation without a waiver of immunity by the tribe or nation or congressional abrogation of the doctrine; and

... C. The Governor is authorized by this enactment to enter into cigarette and tobacco products tax compacts on behalf of the State of Oklahoma with the federally recognized Indian tribes or nations of this state. The compacts shall set forth the terms of agreement between the sovereign parties regulating sale of cigarettes and tobacco products by the tribes or nations or their licensees in Indian country-”

. Title 68 O.S.Supp.1996 §§ 500.3 and 500.63 [Referring to "Indian County” in the context of motor fuel tax compacts.]; 68 O.S.Supp.1993 §§ 346, 348 and 425 [Referring to "Indian County” in relation to cigarette and tobacco compacts.]; 57 O.S.1991 § 509.5 [Providing for the location of inmate work centers in "Indian Country."].

. Title 68 O.S.Supp.1996 § 500.3(35) provides: " ‘Indian country' means:

a. land held in trust by the United States of America for the benefit of a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation;

b. all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation;

c. all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired terri*102tory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and

d. all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including individual allotments held in trust'by the United States or allotments owned in fee by individual Indians subject to federal law restrictions regarding disposition of said allotments and including rights-of-way running through the same.

The term shall also include the definition of Indian country as found in 18 U.S.C., Section 1151."

The same language is used to define "Indian Country” in 68 O.S.Supp.1993 §§ 348 and 425 except that the reference to the federal statute is omitted. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (1985) provides;

"Indian country defined

Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title, the term 'Indian country', as used in this chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.”

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Chickasaw Nation, see note 27, 515 U.S. at 453, 115 S.Ct. at 2217, supra; Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation, see note 27, 508 U.S. at 123, 113 S.Ct. at 1991, supra, defining "Indian Country” as including "formal and informal reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments, whether restricted or held in trust by the United States.”

. Title 68 O.S.Supp.1996 § 500.63, see note 30, supra; 68 O.S.Supp.1992 § 346, see note 30, supra.

. Rule 30, Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S.Supp.1994 Ch. 2, App., provides in pertinent part:

"... B. Recognition of Tribal Judgments — Full faith and Credit

The district courts of the State of Oklahoma shall grant full faith and credit and cause to be enforced any tribal judgment where the tribal court that issued the judgment grants reciprocity to judgments of the courts of the State of Oklahoma, provided, a tribal court judgment shall receive no greater effect or full faith and credit under this rule than would a similar or comparable judgment of a sister state...."

. Title 12 O.S.Supp.1992 § 728 provides:

"A. This act affirms the power of the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma to issue standards for extending full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of any court of any federally recognized Indian nation, tribe, band or political subdivision thereof, including courts of Indian offenses.

B. In issuing any such standard the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma may extend such recognition in whole or in part to such type or types of judgments of the tribal courts as it deems appropriate where tribal courts agree to grant reciprocity of judgments of the courts of the State of Oklahoma in such tribal courts.”

. Title 20 O.S.Supp.1997 § 1601.1 provides in pertinent part:

"... (2) 'Tribe' means a tribe, band, or village of native Americans which is recognized by federal law or formally acknowledged by a state.”

. Tide 20 O.S.Supp.1997 § 1601.2 provides:

"Power to Certify. The Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals of this state, on the motion of a party to pending litigation or on its own motion, may certify a question of law to the highest court of another state, or of a federally recognized Indian tribal government, or of Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico, or a Mexican state if:

1. The pending litigation involves a question to be decided under the law of the other jurisdiction;

2. The answer to the question may be determinative of an issue in the pending litigation; and

3. The question is one for which an answer is not provided by a controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute of the other jurisdiction.”

. Title 20 O.S.Supp.1997 § 1602 provides:

“Power to Answer. The Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the *103United States, or by an appellate court of another state, or of a federally recognized Indian tribal government, or of Canada, a Canadian province or territory, Mexico, or a Mexican state, if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no controlling decision of the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals, constitutional provision, or statute of this state.”

. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (1994) provides in pertinent part:

"Full faith and credit given to protection orders

(A) Full faith and credit. — Any protection order issued that is consistent with subsection (b) of this section by the court of one State or Indian tribe (the issuing State or Indian tribe) shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State or Indian tribe (the enforcing State or Indian tribe) and enforced as if it were the order of the enforcing State or tribe....”

. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (1997) provides in pertinent part:

"Full faith and credit for child support orders

(a) General rule. — The appropriate authorities of each State—

(1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and

(2) shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i).

(b) Definitions. — In this section:

... ‘State’ means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territories and possessions of the United States, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 19)-”

. Title 25 U.S.C. § 3106 (1990) provides in pertinent part:

"Forest trespass ...

(c) Concurrent jurisdiction

Indian tribes which adopt the regulations promulgated by the secretary pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall have concurrent civil jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this section and the regulation promulgated thereunder. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and other agencies of the Federal Government shall, at the request of the tribe, defer to tribal prosecutions of forest trespass cases. Tribal court judgments regarding forest trespass shall be entitled to full faith and credit in Federal and State courts to the same extent as a Federal court judgment obtained under this section.”

. Title 25 U.S.C. § 3713 (1993) provides in pertinent part:

“Indian agricultural lands trespass ...

(c) Concurrent jurisdiction Indian tribes which adopt the regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States to enforce the provisions of this section and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Bureau and other agencies of the Federal Government shall, at the request of the tribal government, defer to tribal prosecutions of Indian agricultural land trespass cases. Tribal court judgments regarding agricultural trespass shall be entitled to full faith and credit in Federal and State courts to the same extent as a Federal court judgment obtained under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to diminish the sovereign authority of Indian tribes with respect to trespass.”

. S.C.Res. No. 62, adopted by the Senate on May 3, 1994, and by the House of Representatives on May 23, 1994, provides in pertinent part:

"... WHEREAS, the State of Oklahoma recognizes that the sovereign status of Indian tribes and nations and the special relationship that exists between the tribes and nations and the federal government are valuable assets that provide opportunities that would enhance the quality of life for all citizens of this state ...”

. Executive Declaration dated April 26, 1989, and signed by Governor Henry Bellman provides in pertinent part:

"WHEREAS, the state of Oklahoma has the distinct honor of having more resident Indian Tribal Governments and Native Americans than any other state; and

WHEREAS, the Oklahoma Legislature and Governor have taken a leadership role in pro*104moting govemment-to-govemment relations with the Indian tribes and nations by establishing the Joint Committee on State/Tribal relations ...”

.H.R. 2107 from the 1st session of the 105th Congress provides in pertinent part:

"AN ACT

Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes ...

TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION LIMITATION

SEC. 120. The receipt by an Indian Tribe of tribal priority allocations funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 'Operation of Indian Programs' account under this Act shall—

(1) waive any claim of immunity by that Indian tube;

(2) subject that Indian tribe to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and grant the consent of the United States to the maintenance of suit and jurisdiction of such courts irrespective of the issue of tribal immunity; and

(3) grant United States district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions brought by or against any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States ...."

Debate on the Senate floor in relation to the above quoted section was held on September 16, 1997. The relevant debate was as follows:

"Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I will move to section 120.

EXCEPTED COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BEGINNING ON PAGE 55, LINE 11

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the excepted committee amendment beginning on page 55, line 11. The text of the excepted committee amendment is as follows:

—[The text of the above § 120, this note supra, was read into the record.]—

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment referred to as section 120, beginning on page 55, line 11, be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The excepted committee amendment beginning on page 55, line 11, was withdrawn.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I wasn’t going to speak to that, but I might make one comment. As I read the language of the bill, there were so many unanswered questions. One that came to mind was this. As I understand section 120, tribes who did not want to give up their sovereign immunity would be denied Federal funds. If they did willingly give up Federal funds, then they would not have had to give up their sovereign immunity, which seemed strange to me because the tribes that are the most destitute and therefore the most dependent on Federal help, would have been the ones who would have had to give up immunity and therefore would have been sued more, where the very few, perhaps 1 out of 100, who do have a casino and have some money, simply would have said we don’t want Federal money, we have enough; therefore, their immunity would have been intact. It seems that paradox should be the thing that we discuss in a proper forum, which is the committee legislation.

With that, I have no further comments, Mr. President. I yield the floor....”

Legislation has been introduced in Congress this session which, if passed, would subject Indian tribes to suit in federal district court for failure to collect taxes on tobacco products. See, S. 1691, American Indian Equal Justice Act.

. S.B. No. 482 passed by the Senate on May 23, 1997, and by the House on May 28, 1997, provides:

"SECTION 1. NEW LAW. A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 90 of Title 20, unless there is created a duplication in numbering reads as follows:

A. The district courts of this state shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution and laws of this state and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

B. The State of Oklahoma recognizes the sovereign immunity of federally recognized Indian tribes. Such immunity shall not be a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the district courts of this state in the following cases:

1. Any case involving a contract or compact when the tribe has clearly and unequivocally waived its sovereign immunity by:

a. A resolution adopted by the governing body of the tribe, or

b. A written provision in the contract or compact at issue; or

2. Any case where the exercise of sovereign immunily has been abrogated by Congress or by a treaty with the United States.”

. The Governor’s veto came after the close of the first session of the 46th legislative session on June 12, 1997.

.Recently, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Farley, 115 F.3d 1498 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 880, 139 L.Ed.2d 868 (1998), in which the Tenth Circuit Court held that tribal courts had the first opportunity to determine jurisdiction in civil actions involving non-Indian activities on tribal lands. The cause involves massive litigation relating to cancer caused by exposure to radioactive materials dumped on tribal lands by an energy company based in Oklahoma City.

. Estate of Johnson, 178 Cal.Rptr. 823, 125 Cal.App.3d 1044 (Cal.App. 1. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828, 103 S.Ct. 63, 74 L.Ed.2d 65.

. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, note 27, supra; Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, see note 4, supra; Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, see note 4, supra.