resulting injury.” Id. at 643, 904 P.2d at 1068. We note, however, that DeFeo also contains the following language: “Without an explicit waiver, the Nation is immune from suit in state court — even if the suit results from commercial activity occurring of the Nation’s reservation.” Id. {7} Worker next asserts that Lopez v. Ski Apache Resort, 114 N.M. 202, 836 P.2d 648 (Ct.App.1992), stands for the proposition that Ski Apache is not immune from suit where a skier was injured within the boundaries of New Mexico. However, the Court in Lopez makes no mention of tribal sovereign immunity. {8} Worker also argues that commercial off-reservation activity by a tribal entity is not protected by sovereign immunity under Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma, 107 N.M. 174, 179-80, 754 P.2d 845, 850-51 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Conversely, the Tribe asserts that Kiowa
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 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 waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract