Heffle v. State, 633 P.2d 264

Heffle v. State

633 P.2d 264

Alaska

1981

Check Treatment

*1 еver, attempt prima to establish a made no least obey, or “at requires that ASHA this cited authority No is consider,” part negligence case. negative response on facie a care is owed duty Al- of due to its selection. to establish that City of the Council timely considering notice ac- an offer they concede that offeree in though by an contract; John- upon of the statute of relied cording duty to the terms enter a Anchorage given to the duty per- selection was apparently ston’s appellants is Counсil, appellants deposition cite the City implied promise found formance Johnson, who was an testimony have, of a Mr. Appellants Heyer line of cases. time this member at board ASHA view, upon presented argument no in our considered, which indicates that project based, and negligence case could which City of the Council’s was not aware ASHA as reject this contention accordingly we selection at the time rejection of its meritless. the contract to Johnston. awarded appel- rejected the clаims we have Since authority by appellants cited only of tort law on the basis lants have asserted rule of support argument of this is the Alaska Constitu- and the United States possible, that “when statutory construction tions, contention we need not reach ASHA’s given provisions all of a effect should be sovereign those claims are barred statute is so that no statute con- we have immunity. Additionally, since Dilling superfluous.” Libby City See of this case remand yet cluded that another 1980); ham, (Alaska 2A C. 612 P.2d appel- necessary, we need not consider Sands, Statutоry Construction Sutherland attorney’s excessive contention that lants’ that: 1973). They argue 46.06 ed. judg- fees were awarded ASHA. board To conclude ASHA superior court is AFFIRMED ment of the disregard and/or be completely could part; and the part, REVERSED city council’s completely unaware of proceedings matter is REMANDED rejection makes proposal of the Johnston herein. expressed views consistent 540(d) requirements the notice of Section meaningless superfluous. Surely the BURKE, J., participating. this legislature not have intended could result. not, appellants apparently

It as

argue, necessary to read the statute

granting city power councils veto

ASHA decisions in order to provision being “meaningless notice Etalook, HEFFLE, Arctic John Del- John out, the superfluous.” points As ASHA Morry, Thronsen, K. Louisa bert Jack J. provision reasonably as quite be read similarly persons Morry, all unknown simply allowing City oppor Council situated, Appellants, selection tunity upon to comment ASHA’s no redevelopment We see proposal. Alaska, Appellee. imply power reason to a veto on behalf STATE of pro notice city councils on the basis of the No. 5079. 18.55.540(b), visiоn and ac contained AS Alaska. Supreme Court of argument find to be without cordingly merit. Sept. the view that Finally, appellants are of for its ASHA can be held liable in tort of their

allegedly negligent consideration have, how-

redevelopment proposal. They necessary steps the redevel- provisions (a) all to effectuate and deliver of this section deeds, opment contract. and take leases and other instruments *2 Fairbanks, Clem H. Stephenson, ap- for pellants. Wood, Gen.,

Larry Atty. D. Asst. Fair- Gross, Gen., Atty. banks and Avrum M. Juneau, appellee. RABINOWITZ, J., CONNOR, C. represented Before loоk was an attorney, an MATTHEWS,

BURKE, JJ., official of the federal Bureau of Indian COOKE, Superior (B.I.A.), Heffle, CHRISTOPHER Court Affairs defendant sev- Judge.* August eral other friends and relatives. On *3 management the Bureau of Land

CONNOR,Justice. issued Etalook a certificate of Native allot- ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍appeal superior is an from a This court ment.

judgment enjoining Arctic John Etalook agreement At the time that the was interfering the other defendants from signed, position the B.I.A. took the that it the of traffic over passage with the North agree- lacked to approve the Slope Haul Road. ments Manage- until the Bureau of Land (B.L.M.)

Prior to December Etalook filed ment executed a certificate of al- application Etalook, an for a Native allotment lotment to Mr. under because until then the Alaska Native Act he would not Allotment be the certified of owner the However, (formerly non-objec- ch. 34 stat. 197 allotment. a letter of 43 U.S.C. 270-3, amended) tion to the agreement 270-1 to as was §§ with the ex- Department superintendent ecuted the the Interior for a of the Fair- 160-acre banks parcel August 22, office the On by Nugget of land located B.I.A. Creek 1975, the juncture its B.L.M. issued the near with the certificate. Middle Fork of later, years November, 1978, Three Koyukuk River. Section 18 of the Alas- Alyeska joint State of Alaska and Act, made a ka Native Claims Settlement 43 U.S.C. application Secretary to the the Interior (Supp. repealed I the Allot- approve highway rights and confirm the Act, permitted any ap- ment but allotment of-way across Arctic John’s allotment. This plication pending on December application is currently pending before the approved applicant if the desired the B.I.A., agree- which has indicated that application process to continue. Etalook ¿(he approved ment cannot be without further application filed an additional with the investigation into the circumstances of Eta- Fairbanks office Bureau of Land Meanwhile, look’s consent. the road was Management express his interest in con- built and is now of the state highway processing tinued application. of his While system. Etalook waited approval, for his allotment Pipeline the Trans-Alaska Authorization disagreements After use of the 93-153, of Act Pub.L.No. stat. 584 Road, May 17, 23-24, Haul on and on June (codified (1976)) at 1651-1655 §§ defendants, claiming represent 203(b) was the Pipeline enacted. Section Etalook, constructed a barricade across the Act, 1652(b), directed the Secre- Haul Road at Mile which was within Etalook n Native allotment. The defend- tary of the rights-of-way Interior to issue across pipeline United States land for the attempted ants charge road use tolls to and the Haul Road. using truck drivers the road. When threat- arrest, ened they allowed trucks to 2,May On grant- Stаtes United pass unimpeded. Alaska, ed the right-of-way to the subject existing Alyeska to valid rights. The state filed a motion for a preliminary Pipeline Company, agent Service for the interference with a 38.35.130, state right- under AS public obtained a highway. requested Etalook of-way agreement from controversy Etalook for the be removed to the United Haul May Road on Alyeska paid Court, 1975. District States but removal was de- $25,000 Etalook right-of-way. for the Dur- nied and the ease was remanded to the ing the negotiation of agreement superior entering Eta- pre- court. After * COOKE, Superior Judge, sitting Court as- 16 of the Constitution Alaska. signment pursuant IV, made to article section injunction, on liminary October L.Ed.2d Chief Justice Mar- approved permanent explained shall that Native Americans were defendants, analogous against Etalook and the other to wards of the United States. interfering Nation, (5 Pet.) restraining them from with the Cherokee at Worcester, appeal from L.Ed. at Haul Road. The defendants Chief Justice permanent injunc- entering emphasized right the order Marshall of Native territory tion. Americans to the within their dis- communities, political tinct and that requires We hold that because this action guaranteed by the United States. adjudication and other in- 557, 561-62, (6 Pet.) 8 L.Ed. at subject which is to a terests Chambers, see Judicial Enforce- imposed by restriction alienation Responsibility ment of the Federal Trust States, court did the United 27 Stan.L.Rev. *4 jurisdiction perma- not have to enter the (1975). In when Dakota South at- injunction. 1360(b). nent 28 U.S.C. § tempted improve- to collect taxes on land At the heart of this action is the lands, by ments the Sioux on their allotted whether the valid easement state has a Justice Harlan noted that since the federal across Etalook’s Native allotment. The government help- caused the weakness and controlling jurisdictional states: statute Americans, govern- lessness of Native “Nothing in this section shall authorize duty power protection. ment had the and any personal the alienation ... of real or Rickert, United States v. 188 U.S. property belonging any . . . to . . . Indian (1903). 23 S.Ct. 47 L.Ed. that is held in trust the United States power implied This “an exclusion of all oth- subject or is to a restriction alien- authority proрerty er over the which could States; imposed by ation . . . United right interfere with this or obstruct its ex- jurisdiction upon or shall confer the State ercise.” Id. at 23 S.Ct. 47 L.Ed. at adjudicate, probate proceedings or judicial 537. This line of decisions led com- otherwise, pos- or mentators to note that any session of such or interest controlling principle pre- which “[t]he therein.” exercising vents . . . [state] 1360(b)(1976).1 § U.S.C. any power jurisdiction or respon any involving any The basis for the matter the transfer of title, government right, sibilities of the federal in rela or interest in or to restricted tion to Native Americans was first set forth allotted Indian lands is that the United Georgia, (5 plenary in Cherokee Nation v. 30 U.S. States the exercise of its Pet.) power 8 L.Ed. 25 and in Worcester exclusive over Indians and Georgia, (6 Pet.) property may adopt 8 L.Ed. 483 such measures U.S. (1832). acknowledging necessary After as it deem state, e., protection i. Cherokees were a “a distinct their welfare and and the state Nation, political society,” legislative authority without Cherokee have (5 Pet.) power jurisdiction 8 L.Ed. at see Williams v. no or to intеrfere with Lee, 358 U.S. 79 S.Ct. or circumvent those measures.” 1360(a) 1. 28 shall have the provides: persons private property same force and effect within Indian such “Each of the States or Territories listed in have elsewhere within the country they following jurisdiction table shall have ” State or . . . . Territory over civil causes action between Indians or to which Indians are which arise parties Congress 2. The over the af plenary power the areas of listed Indian country opposite fairs of Native Americans was confirmed the name of thе State or to the Territory 551-52, 94 Mancari, Morton v. same extent that such State or has Territory 41 L.Ed.2d Congressional action, over other civil causes of The source of the power and those civil laws of such State or Territo- Native Americans from the United implied general are ry that application private States Constitution and from the history Cohen, Indian tion of the F. Handbook of Federal Law reservation of (U.N.Mex.Press involving matters interest in allotted lands.5 Congressional policy regarding Na specific are part Allotments Amеricans, following expla tive initial policy regarding federal Indian advance courts, by the has not been nation consist Fir, Inc., re ment. In Humboldt policy two ent. Tension exists between ob (N.D.Cal.1977). See Santa first, above, jectives. The discussed insu Indians, Rosa Band 532 F.2d at 665-66. Americans from state law lates Native Part federal policy of that is the restriction govern continues control on the alienation of lands allotted until ment. The second reflects and assimilation approved aby government United States into American culture and includes Nativе 2561.3(a) official. See C.F.R. as citizens of the state in Americans which approval necessary non- reside, they allowing thus taking advantage Indians from unfair 1953, Congress over Native Americans. Native Americans. The Indian allotment chapter Public Law enacted necessary scheme is so to federal Indian Although reconcile two models.3 policy no permit state interference is statute, now codified in at 28 U.S.C. Indians, ted. Rosa Santa Band of 1360, granted jurisdiction particular at 666. Because of effectively the need to states over civil and criminal actions in implement policy long and the territory involving Indian standing tradition of federal *5 expressly ques reserved over the of affairs Native Americans and tions of interest in allotted lands.4 The lands, strictly courts interpreted have legislative history ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍1360(b) for section grant section 1360 a broad of state sparse, Bryan County, v. Itasca 426 U.S. over allotment lands. See 710, 96 S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d Bryan, 381, 2107, 426 U.S. at 96 at S.Ct. 48 primary 715 but aim of the 717; L.Ed.2d at Santa Rosa Band of Indi give statute was states ans, 661; Chino, at Chino v. 561 control lawlessness on Indian reservations. 476, (N.M.1977).6 P.2d 478 379, 2106, Id. at 96 S.Ct. at 48 L.Ed.2d at 715-16. Santa Rosa Band of allеged paragraph See Indians The state in III of 655, Kings County, 532 661 complaint F.2d its it right-of- Cir. received the 1975), denied, 1038, way cert. 97 S.Ct. across the lands in from (1977). Alyeska 50 L.Ed.2d 718 There Pipeline is even Company, Service who re explanation grant less of for the civil ceived the United jurisdiction, id. 426 Paragraph U.S. at S.Ct. at States. alleged IV that Etalook only 48 L.Ed.2d at one men- and the “just other defendants without ti- 3. For a 4. The 5. The Senate various tribes. Board of dealings L.Ed. 22 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 535 objectives Seber, in allotments is nal matters of State Jurisdiction over Reservation tended “As see language 318 U.S. § introduced, Goldberg, between longer 1162(b) reserving jurisdiction and the role in civil matters involving criminal Report briefly in discussion of the two similar to 28 U.S.C. the federal Public Law 280: The Limits H.R. 1063 would have ex- (1943). the same issue. laws (1975). played by County § involving noted that: S.Ct. 1360(b) reserving government language State of Cali- Comm'rs Public Law interests in crimi- policy in 18 6.“[A]ny 2411. strued in S. boldt courts to fornia to Concurrently, nature cept Indian the entire State from made for involved.” Rep. ^[1953] Fir, where trust or restricted No. affecting favor of the ambiguity liquor laws; U.S. Code Inc., all permitting Indian 83d Indians within the provided in § 1360 should be con Cong., Cong. Indians. country civil controversies of operation finally, provision & Ad. News 2d for withdrawal of within the State. California . . . Sess., of the Federal ” property In State, (N.D.Cal. reprinted re Hum was was any ex- claim, tie, interest” interfered with right, or case the federal questions one on right-of-way. presented It is basic that the face of the com- plaint, proper state’s course if it restraining is the or successfully move pursue wishes the matter further. of an easement if obstruction der rights proper to or not have title one does We have confronted issues trust land Bose, Metzger v. the easement. See In ownership before. Ollestead Native Cal.App.2d P.2d Village (Alaska), Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31 Powell, Law of generally R. Real denied, See cert. 434 U.S. Thus, ¶ 420 to reach the Property sought L.Ed.2d 297 Ollestead a de in claratory judgment entitling conclusion that an her to land ownership as a controversy, Tyonek in in the town member village corporation of a Native under easement which crosses Eta- terests held U.S.C. 477. Id. 33. We adjudicat “[a] Native allotment must be look’s adjudication questions state court trib ed. membership necessarily encompass al would preliminary After the state moved for possession issues of requested removal of injunction, Etalook subject property held in trust and to restric federal district court. Re- the action to the tions on alienation.” Id. at 36. Thus we opin- in a memorandum moval denied juris concluded that state court lacked complaint was reasoning that the state’s ion diction under 28 U.S.C. 1360. Calista high- of a state an action for “obstruction Mann, (Alaska Corporation v. P.2d 53 a cause way under law. Such sought declaratоry judgment Mann jurisdiction of the state is within the action entitling her to stock in two na- shares of jurisdic- original and not within the adopted corporations daughter tive as the Denial was tion of the federal courts.” of a Id. at deceased shareholder. complaint” “well-pleaded rule based on the ownership of stock was at the center of the Supreme expressed by the United States by operation of controversy and Anderson, Taylor Court 1606(h)(1) the stock was trust *6 724, 1218, 75-76, 34 1219-20 S.Ct. L.Ed. “Thus, 1360(b). within 28 absent a § U.S.C. (1914),and in Indian Na- reaffirmed Oneida jurisdiction by of the United conferral Oneida, County of 414 U.S. tion States, 1360,” than we other 94 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d held state were without that the courts jurisdiction in that case. Id. at 58. In this removability The the decision to relief, injunctive the determina- action for not, course, preclude of this action would of rights of to an over a Native tion easement ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍accepting the federal district court from controversy. the allotment is the center of jurisdiction separate action original with the in Calista Cor- Consistent decisions facts, if the facts brought on these same Ollestead, we hold that the poration and invoking jurisdiction question are federal adju- state to courts of this lack complaint. In alleged on face of the the rights. dicate those deed, spe order the court’s remand injunction by the permanent entered adjudication cifically “[a]ny of *7 attempts other claimants’ to take forcible 51 L.Ed. [27 566] possession, respective rights until Clarke, United States by could be agency. determined 1979). Agli, Cir. State of Alaska v. The court stated: (D. Alaska rightful possession The claimant’s Id. right possession always protect- to will be concludes, majority opinion The based on trespasser ed or by enforced a the reading its of 28 that appropriate action in court when that can jurisdiction no because state courts have deciding controversy be done without land, they title to Native also Land Department which the has enjoin lack exclu- obstruction of a highway disagree. jurisdiction. over Native I sive land. [Citations omitted]. Co., Kroger quo may protect- 1. See Houck S.W.2d the court so that the status be (Tex.Civ.App.1977); Chapple Hight, ed until trial on the merits. Courts frown on self-help; enсourage Ga. S.E. See also the action on the Texaco, Inc., encourage Owens v. S.W.2d in defendants ... this case is to (Tex.Civ.App.1963) (“the prior peaceable, peace, last breaches of the friction bloodshed. possession by omitted].”) upheld will exclusive of land be [Citations ease, When, however, ing, as in this the or will be limited to an action in litiga- rights condemnation, are opposing claimant’s reverse is not a decisive Office, and the Land tion before federal issue in and is not this case determined. have, therefore, no the courts a threat We do hold that of force opposing par- which of the two to decide proper remedy to obtain violence is not claimant, rightful the the ties is possession and such action should be en- their aid to powerless not to extend are joined. the de-

preserve granted Unless is in this an equity powers of violence. The structive damages case the to be sustained sufficiently broad and courts are elas- the plaintiff and those whom it serves will be circumstances, justice under such tic to do possession substantial. Plaintiff’s should interfering with the without be maintained until the substantive and officials to of the federal Land Office permanent parties may rights of the determine ultimate by appropriate proceedings. determined with tó the land in con- respect claimant at 736. Id. Like the Zimmerman troversy. plaintiff is in Inasmuch as emphasized court in the fact Mid-Continent contesting the proper and is possession, peaceable possession and the need to validity entry, defendant’s tribunal preserve quo. the status right pos- to take upon which latter’s Other which hold that courts authorities clearly improper depends, it is for session quo have to maintain the status dispossess plaintiff violently defendant title, underlying questions pending until the final result of the contest shall until forum, separate in a are resolved are set two have disclosed which of the have margin.2 forth right. better Id. at issued provide court be modified to should Pipe Company Line In Mid-Continent shall be of no force or effect in the event Emerson, (Okla.1964), there P.2d right-of- the B.I.A. does not confirm the invading was no of the state way agreement. injunс- As so modified the jurisdiction, ques- there was a but tion pipeline would be consistent with § of whether an owner of tion enjoin policies underlying well as that statute. the owner of the could interfering 1360(a) juris- provides estate its with servient state courts possession, where unclear. grant general equitable title was Stress- diction to relief ing plaintiff asking that the country.” jurisdiction- within “Indian That asking only title be determined but its grant qualified only to extent that al injunction, the court stated: “rights ownership” of trust possession or being adjudicated. are As used In the instant case Mid-Continеnt had lands peaceable portion 1360(b), of a es- possession properly read as “possession” been nearly title, two and sentially equivalent of defendants’ land for and not years. It was the defendants possession one-half conditional sense at issue in the possession sought out who were possession here. has been possession regain .... ownership interest to Na- greatest available *8 respect much of tive with be able re- Americans Whether defendants will land, remaining in the proceed- legal title possession subsequent their with gain in a Co., 417, 244, McComas, Ry. Ry. ville & N. 190 Ala. 67 So. v. 2. Northern Pacific Co. 250 Norman, (1914); Mengel 1049, & Bro. v. 144 245-46 39 63 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. Shiebeck, 632, Import (1919); Corp. Smith v. (1919); Tilford v. La. So. 207 Park & 81 1053 Inc., 795, 412, (1942); Rye, Rocka 888, 180 Md. 24 A.2d 799 Baltimore 5 889 Hunter Delaware, way Corp. Development Rolling W. v. L. & Mill (S.D.N.Y.1933); Land & Co. Olive Co., 192, 650, (1927) Olmstead, Ry. 568, (S.D.Cal.1900); N.J.Eq. 137 652 v. 101 A. 103 F. 580 aff’d, 297, 334, 49, (1928); Soderberg, N.J.Eq. Ry. 143 335 Pacific 103 A. Northern Co. 86 F. Rich, 52, 194, Finley, 195 ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍Elliott (N.D.Wash. 1898); P. Ex Parte 24 N.M. 172 20 So.2d 51 Ry. (1918). 98, (1944); Co. v. Louis- Mobile B. 100 272 1360(b) government,3 and so rulings great should in the majority of cases broadly pro- ineffective to impart

would have been be adhered to in order to a measure only term litigation. Indian interests if especially tect “own- of ordеr to This is ership” rulings had been used. respect true with as which of case; particular a two courts should hear “sparse” Although there is evidence of unseemly, costly, otherwise an time 1360,4 legislative intent behind it is consuming shuttling of cases between reasonably bar state clear that the inter- courts —the situation here —will result. ference Indian trust land embodied in 1360(b) necessary was considered for the injunction these For reasons issued administration of effective federal Indian court should modified to be particularly preserva- policy,5 and for the on made conditional the B.I.A.’s decision property.6 of Indian tion concerning agreement; as case, modified, issued this would not so modified the should be af- potential pur- these have the to frustrate firmed. poses. Moreover, the court’s decision in district Heffle, (D. Alaska v. No. F79-23

Alaska, 24, 1979), 1360(b) July construed § injunctive precluding

as not relief

sought by the state in this case. This deci interpreting

sion a federal court feder George BALLUM, Appellants, and Anna statute, binding upon al while clause, supremacy under is nonetheless WEINRICK’S, INC., Appellee. persuasive authority. may It also be con No. 4842. establishing sidered аs the law of the case. See United States ex rel. Lawrence Supreme Court Alaska. Woods, (7th 1970); 432 F.2d 1072 Cir. 1B Sept. 1981.

Moore’s Federal Practice § 0.404[6] 1980). And, (2d ed. while the law of the permits departure

case doctrine from earli warranted, rulings clearly

er where such See, States, controlling principle prevents 3. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United which federal, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. state whether or from exercis- (1955); ing any power Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. or Kings County, any involving Cir. any matter the transfer of denied, cert. right, title, S.Ct. or or interest in to restricted allot- also, Cohen, (1977). 50 L.Ed.2d 748 See F. Indian ted lands that the United States in Law, Handbook of Federal Indian (1942). аt 411-12 plenary pow- the exercise of its and exclusive property may over er adopt the Indians such measures as deem neces- Bryan County, v. Itasca sary protec- for their welfare and (1976); 48 L.Ed.2d legislative tion and courts without Haldane, supra Atkinson v. at 165. As one authority power have no it, likely, jur- commentator views civil “[m]ost interfere with or circumvent those measures. afterthought isdiction in measure Cohen, (footnotes supra, omitted). F. at 381 primarily bringing aimed at law and order to reservations, comported added because it Kings 6. Sеe Santa Rosa Band of Indians pro-assimilationist poli- with drift of federal County, Comment, 532 F.2d at see also cy, and cheap.” because it was convenient and Underlying Indian Taxation: Policies and Goldberg, Public Law 280: The Limits of State Problems, Present L. Cal. Rev. 1266-74 Jurisdiction Reservation Smithson, Taxation, Israel & Indian A.L.Rev. Sovereignty Development, Tribal & Economic 49 N.D.L.R. Fir, Inc., 5. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍See United States v. Humboldt *9 (N.D.Cal.1977); Cohen ex- plains policy: the rationale behind this notes superior court on October restrain- title, claim, right or in an Alaska interests interfering with ing defendants from the by the Native held in trust Unit Allotment is the Road is vacated and the case Haul compensa of ed States or a determination court with di- remanded to for inverse condemnation of Native tion jurisdiction. of rections to dismiss for lack jurisdic within the exclusive Allotment is REVERSED REMANDED. must be de tion of the federal courts and separate in this court.” termined in a action MATTHEWS, Justice, with whom we conclude that Since COOKE, joins, dissenting. Judge, improperly accept cannot this case without injunction an under the facts deciding questions exclusively reserved to Issuance of with the classic courts, appears filing оf case is consistent it tñe the federal injunctive relief: purposes prior of maintenance we cases have construed peace, of public the status order preclude grant state court adjudication legal rights.1 quo, pending declaratory sought, relief on the grounds necessarily implicate that would district court’s memorandum The federal denying questions removal stated that property. order of title to trust Olle complaint presented “only state’s a cause of Village stead v. Tyonek, Native 560 P.2d highway obstruction оf a state action for denied, (Alaska cert. 434 U.S. law. Such a cause of action is under state 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 297 Calista state courts within the Corporation Mann, (Alaska 564 P.2d 53 original within and not 1977). courts.” Alaska v. However, injunction an differs from a Alaska, Heffle, (D. July F79-23 No. declaratory judgment, in that However, 1979). went court on to ex- rights property are necessarily af- plain: Many fected. courts have held in a variety jurisdic The state courts do not have adjudicate title, tion claim or of contexts that where is dispute title held trust for interests dispute pending resolution Natives. Alaskan Ollestead v. Native forum, may grant another a con- Tyonek, Village of P.2d preserve ditional the status 1977); (Alaska Haldane, Atkinson v. 569 quo upon prima showing facie of title or 151, 167 (Alaska 1977). Cogo n. 59 P.2d present possession. Tlingit Central Council of and Haida In eventually vacated if title is determined Alaska, F.Supp. dians of adversely party to the whose favor it (D. 1979); Agli, Alaska State of Alaska v. runs. (D. Alaska, 1360(b). adjudication Any closely analogous present In a ease to the title, claim, right or interests in an Alas case, McCurdy, Zimmerman v. 15 N.D. ka Allotment in trust Native held 106 N.W. 125 the North Dakota Su- or a United States determination of com preme Court held that where competing pensation for inverse condemnation of a pending claims to federal land were before Native Allotment is within exclusive Department, the Land which had exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and jurisdiction title, over the separate must be determined in a- action injunction in state court was in this court. Minnesota v. United quo protect maintain the status and to States, 305 [59 occupying possession against claimant’s (1939). McKay Kalyton, 295]