non-Puyallup Indian, because there was no infringement on tribal sovereignty. In Chino v. Chino, 90 N.M. 203, 561 P.2d 476 (1977), a husband and wife were both Indians but of different tribes. They resided on the reservation of the husband and when they divorced, parallel proceedings were brought in state and tribal courts. The trial court awarded the wife a house on the reservation, but the husband’s son moved into the house. The former wife then filed a forcible entry and wrongful detainer suit in state court, and on appeal, it was held that under the Williams infringement test, the state court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case even though the tribal court recognized no right of action for forcible entry and wrongful detainer. See also Conroy v. Conroy, 575 F.2d 175 (8th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). In tort cases in non-Public Law 280
holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that tribal courts have jurisdiction to divide trust property in a divorce action when both parties are indians