v. Power Authority of New York, 257 F.2d 885, 893 (2d Cir.1958) (Nonintercourse Act applied to condemnation proceeding by state), vacated as moot, 362 U.S. 608, 80 S.Ct. 960, 4 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1960); United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 56 F.2d 634, 635 (D.Neb.1931) (“The Omaha tribe owned its lands before Nebraska became a state____ It is not competent for either the Congress by legislation or the states by court decisions to impair those rights.”), aff'd, 59 F.2d 367 (8th Cir.1932). d. Does the Tribe have a claim to lands covered by the 1866 Act? The Tribe’s claim arises under Texas legislation, to which we must apply Texas’ rules of statutory construction. See Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 372, 97 S.Ct. 582, 588, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977) (<HOLDING>). In determining the meaning of the 1866 Act,
recognizing rule that state law governs the substance of claims in bankruptcy proceedings holding texas law governs procedural matters holding state law governs disputed ownership of lands holding texas law governs the procedural matter of preservationoferror requirements even if another jurisdictions law governs substantive issues holding that state law not admiralty governs the validity of transfers of title