With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". power to determine whether claimants to a share of decedent’s stock in a Native American Corporation are adopted children. Calista Corp. v. Mann, 564 P.2d 53, 57-58 (Alaska 1977). The Alaska court also, in Ollestead v. Native Village of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31 (Alaska), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 938, 98 S.Ct. 426, 54 L.Ed.2d 297 (1977), held state courts were without jurisdiction to determine whether claimants to oil royalties were members of a Native Village. In Comenout v. Burdman, 84 Wash.2d 192, 525 P.2d 217 (1974), the court held that jurisdiction under Public Law 280 existed to terminate the parental rights of reservation Indians. See also In re Adoption of Buehl, 87 Wash.2d 649, 555 P.2d 1334 (1976); Duluth Lumber and Plywood Co. v. Delta Development, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Voorhees v. Spencer, 89 Nev. 1, 504 P.2d 1321

A: holding the existence of jurisdiction in state courts to hear a dispute by a materials supplier against a contractor in an indian housing agency under the authority of public law 280
B: holding that pursuant to amended public law 280 a tribe must consent to state court civil jurisdiction over actions arising against member indians in indian country
C: holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280
D: holding that the wisconsin supreme court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in determining that public law 280 conferred civil jurisdiction to the state of wisconsin to commit burgess an enrolled member of an indian tribe as a sexually violent person
A.