state civil and criminal law would apply and the owner would be subject to state law jurisdiction. Id. at 255, 112 S.Ct. 683; see also South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498, 508-09, 106 S.Ct. 2039, 90 L.Ed.2d 490 (1986). As the Court explained: “With the issue of the patent, the title not only passed from the United States but the prior trust and the incidental restrictions against alienation were terminated. This put an end to the authority theret Mass.1982); Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. State, 244 Mich.App. 739, 626 N.W.2d 169, 174 (2001); Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 130 Wash.2d 862, 929 P.2d 379, 387 (1996); cf. City of Sher-rill, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 202-03, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 161 L.Ed.2d 386 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, once a tribe owns land in fee simple,
holding that in action by property owner to recover land taken by eminent domain current titleholder to land might be necessary party if district court were to restore land to plaintiff holding that even though the complaint sought money damages and land was actually recovered the attorneys lien attached to the land holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land holding that the oneida tribe could not unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over land through openmarket purchases from current titleholders even though the land had previously been reservation land holding that trust land is a reservation under  1151a