of their decreed water rights clearly demonstrate a continuing ratification of its initial waiver of immunity”). We have recognized that the Sixth Judicial District Court has continuing jurisdiction over matters arising out of the administration of the Humboldt Decree. State Engineer v. Sustacha, 108 Nev. 223, 826 P.2d 959 (1992). The Sixth Judicial District Court has the authority to hold in contempt those who interfere with or frustrate the actions of the state engineer or water commissioners in the administration of the Humboldt Decree. State v. District Court, 52 Nev. 270, 286 P. 418 (1930). The tribe enjoys sovereign immunity, and thus, generally, cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of a state court. See, e.g., Snooks v. District Court, 112 Nev. 798, 919 P.2d 1064 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Patterson v. Four Rent, Inc., 101 Nev. 651,
holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction over indian claims to land allotments holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction to entertain a civil action filed by a nonindian against an indian for events that occurred on indian land holding that federal court has neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over civil action by nonindian against indian for events occurring on the reservation holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws  including the execution of a search warrant  unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction