to state laws, in marked contrast to what prevailed in the time of Chief Justice Marshall.” Organized Village of Kake, 369 U.S. at 74, 82 S.Ct. at 570, 7 L.Ed.2d at 583. The Court has stated repeatedly that, “even on reservations, state laws may be applied unless such application would interfere with reservation self-government or would impair a right granted or reserved by federal law.” Mescalero Apache Tribe, 411, U.S. at 148, 93 S.Ct. at 1270, 36 L.Ed.2d at 119; see also Organized Village of Kake, 369 U.S. at 75, 82 S.Ct. at 570, 7 L.Ed.2d at 583; New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 499, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261, 263 (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896). But see Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959) (<HOLDING>). ' More recent cases from the Supreme Court
holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation 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 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 state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation