court cases and federal circuit court cases. Initially it is necessary to distinguish between those states with Public Law 280 jurisdiction and those without such jurisdiction. Two courts have held that states with Public Law 280 jurisdiction cannot enforce their land-use regulations on trust land located on the reservation. Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 731, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977); United States v. County of Humboldt, 615 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir.1980); Snohomish County v. Seattle Disposal Co., 425 P.2d 22 (Wash.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 585, 19 L.Ed.2d 662 (1967). But see People v. Rhoades, 12 Cal.App.3d 720, 90 Cal.Rptr. 794 (1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 823, 92 S.Ct. 46, 30 L.Ed.2d 51 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Alaska, which has Public Law 280
holding that a state can require firebreaks around housing on trust property adjacent to forest lands holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that article 10 section 8 of the arizona constitution did not create greater restrictions than the enabling act on exchanges of trust lands because section 8 provided that every disposition of or contract concerning trust lands would be null and void if not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of the enabling act holding that the state has no special sovereign interest in managing lands held in trust holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing