that the best possible price is obtained where a sale is desirable." (citations omitted)); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 443-44, 46 S.Ct. 561, 70 L.Ed. 1023 (1926) (''The Indians of the pueblo are wards of the United States, and hold their lands subject to the restriction that the same cannot be alienated in any wise without its consent. A judgment or decree which operates directly or indirectly to transfer the lands from the Indians, where the United States has not authorized or appeared in the suit, infringes that restriction. The United States has an interest in maintaining and enforcing the restriction, which cannot be affected by such a judgment or decree."). 21 . See John I, 982 P.2d at 754-59. 22 . Moreover, City of Ta tter, 217 Conn. 612, 587 A.2d 139, 142 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 26 . 690 P.2d 10 (Alaska 1984). 27 . See id.
holding that state has standing to appeal an action initiated by a tribe based on its statutory obligation to oversee the  reservation which made it responsible under the statute for damage to the reservation and misuse of tribal funds  and thus authorized to appeal holding that a tribe had the inherent authority to prosecute a nonmember indian for assaulting a tribal member while on the reservation and that federal assault charges stemming from the same incident and filed after the nonmembers tribal assault conviction were based on a separate power source and therefore  did not violate the double jeopardy clause holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation holding the state can tax gross receipts of tribal enterprise operated off the reservation holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract