jurisdiction unless they are ‘within an established Indian reservation’.” Id. at 776
(quoting RCW 37.12.010). Therefore, “Nooksack consent is not necessary for
the continuing exercise of state jurisdiction over trust lands outside the
boundaries of the Nooksack Reservation.” Id. at 781.
The parties here agree that the property in this case is located on allotted
land outside the established Nooksack Indian Reservation. RCW 37.12.010
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83456-8-I/7
exempts from state jurisdiction only matters occurring on reservation land. Since
the events giving rise to the present case occurred off-reservation, we conclude
that RCW 37.12.010 permits exercise of state jurisdiction absent some other
applicable restriction.
RCW 37.12.060 does not preclude state jurisdiction
RCW 37.12.010 is not the only provision bearing upon considerations of
state court jurisdiction in this case. The Rabangs assert that the trial court
wrongly denied their motion for reconsideration when it held that RCW 37.12.060
precludes state court jurisdiction over the claims of this case. We conclude that
the trial court incorrectly applied RCW 37.12.060, but nonetheless its conclusion
was correct for reasons addressed below.
RCW 37.12.060 states that:
Nothing in this chapter . . . shall confer jurisdiction upon the
state to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the
ownership or right to possession of such property [belonging to any
Indian tribe that is held in trust by the United States] or any interest
therein.
The Rabangs claim that RCW 37.12.060 does not apply to the claims of
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. We agree.