or community in the exercise of any authority which it may possess shall, if not inconsistent with any applicable civil law of the State, be given full force and effect in the determination of civil causes of action pursuant to this section. . . . ” I. Grant of P.L. 280 jurisdiction to local governments The first impediment to enforcement of the County ordinances is that they are not “civil laws of [the] State . . . that are of general application . . . within the State . . . .” This is a matter of first impression for this court; district courts in this circuit have split on the issue. Plaintiffs, contending that local ordinances are not state laws of “general application . . . elsewhere within the State,” rely on Donelon v. New Orleans Terminal Co., 474 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir. 1973) (<HOLDING>), and Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97, 87 S.Ct.
holding local ordinances are not state statutes within the meaning of 28 usc  2281 requiring convening of a threejudge district court to enjoin a state statute holding local ordinances not state laws within the meaning of the railroad safety act of 1970 45 usc  434 holding that a factor who retains the money of his principal is not a fiduciary within the meaning of the bankruptcy laws holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that because no clear implication could be derived from the language of the statute that the state should be bound by the local zoning ordinances the state was not bound