Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the state courts of Arizona. The Supreme Court reversed the Arizona court judgment in favor of the trader, holding that no jurisdiction existed therefor. That holding appears based on two grounds: one, that Arizona had not accepted and assumed Public Law 280 jurisdiction; and two, that to allow “the exercise of state jurisdiction here would undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs and hence would infringe on the right of the Indians to govern themselves.” Id., 358 U.S. at 223, 79 S.Ct. at 272. Most of the succeeding litigation has been attempts to apply that test rather than focusing on the exceptions to Public Law 280 jurisdiction. See Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (<HOLDING>); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, supra 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that states have authority to tax sales of cigarettes to nonmembers of the tribe (B) holding that an express pass through statement is not necessary before an indian tribe may be required to collect cigarette taxes (C) holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue (D) holding property lien for nonpayment of sales tax was beyond boroughs authority to collect sales tax (E) holding that both the state and the tribe can tax cigarette sales to nonindians
Output (English): holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue