54 (N.D. 1975); Gourneau v. Smith, 207 N.W.2d 256 (N.D.1973); Sigana v. Bailey, 282 Minn. 367, 164 N.W.2d 886 (1969). However, it has been held that jurisdiction exists in a state court as to a suit brought by an Indian plaintiff against a non-Indian defendant for an on-reservation tort. Paiz v. Hughes, 76 N.M. 562, 417 P.2d 51 (1966). It has been held in Montana that state jurisdiction to hear a divorce proceeding between two Indians is dependent upon whether the tribes to which the parties belong have adopted a tribal code. See State ex rel. Stewart v. District Court, 609 P.2d 290 (Mont.1980); State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District Court, 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292 (1973); see also Chino v. Chino, supra. Cf. Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 96 S.Ct. 943, 47 L.Ed.2d 106 (1976) (<HOLDING>). In New Mexico it has been held that an Indian
holding that indians could be denied access to state courts in connection with an adoption proceeding arising on a reservation holding the argument that the state and federal constitutions required appointed counsel in adoption proceeding was not preserved holding that district court had no jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims that his constitutional rights were violated in state divorce proceeding holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed