With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962); Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315, 318, 77 S.Ct. 374, 1 L.Ed.2d 354 (1957). This same approach has been used when the negligent act or omission occurred on Indian land located within a state. See Champagne v. United States, 40 F.3d 946 (8th Cir.1994); Goodman v. United States, 2 F.3d 291 (8th Cir.1993); Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 936 F.2d 1320 (D.C.Cir.1991); Seyler v. United States, 832 F.2d 120 (9th Cir.1987); Bryant v. United States, 565 F.2d 650 (10th Cir.1977). While most courts have applied state law in a nearly reflexive manner, recently a small number of courts have been conflicted as to whether tribal law should apply in these circumstances. Compare Cheromiah v. United States, 55 F.Supp.2d 1295, 1303-09 (D.N.M.1999) (<HOLDING>) with Louis v. United States, 54 F.Supp.2d

A: holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction
B: holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court
C: holding that a nonmember who files a civil claim in an indian tribal court consents to tribal jurisdiction
D: holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim
D.