of hunting and 2) has no more than an incidental effect on the hunting right. The State proposed that, if the preceding two prongs were satisfied, the state law applied to an Indian exercising “in common” hunting rights notwithstanding the failure to satisfy appropriate nondiscriminatory public-safety standards. The Court disagrees because the legal authority relied upon by the State is either inapplicable 009) (setting forth general-applicability doctrine as it relates to a federal statute); Oregon v. Jim, 81 Or.App. 189, 191, 725 P.2d 372 (1986) (distinguishing between the federal government’s authority to regulate Indian conduct with a state’s more limited ability); L. Martin, K. Simmons, and E. Surette, 42 C.J.S. Indians: State Regulation: Off-Reservation Activity § 139 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Because Olney failed to appreciate the
holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity recognizing that an indian tribal member is subject to generallyapplicable state laws regulating wildlife unless in common wildlife rights have been expressly reserved by the tribe holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that a statechartered corporation partially owned by an indian tribe was not a tribal agency