HELENA, Mont. - A federal judge in Montana was correct when he ruled that a tribal court on the Flathead Indian Reservation had jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought by a nontribal member injured in truck crash on the reservation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The decision by the 11-judge "en banc" panel reverses a ruling by a three-member panel of the same court in August 2004. That panel had concluded the tribal court had no jurisdiction in the case and that James R. Smith's lawsuit against a tribally operated college could move forward in federal court.

Robert J. Phillips, an attorney for Salish Kootenai College, called the ruling an "important statement" about the rights of tribal courts to settle matters on their reservations.

"This was not a simple case, but it's an important case on a very important issue," he said. "We're pleased with what appears to be a very rigorous analysis of the issues by the court."

Smith's attorney, Rex Palmer, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

Smith was a student at the tribally owned Salish Kootenai College in Pablo. In May 1997, he was driving a college dump truck along U.S. Highway 93 on the reservation as part of his course work in a vocational program. The dump truck's right rear leaf spring broke, causing the truck to go out of control, killing one passenger and injuring Smith and another passenger.

Smith's lawsuit filed in tribal court alleged the college was liable for the accident and that evidence in the case had been destroyed. The Salish and Kootenai Tribal Court returned a verdict in favor of the college.

Smith, who is an American Indian but not a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, then appealed to the tribal appeals court, arguing among other things that the lower tribal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The tribal appeals court ruled against him.

Smith then appealed the case on its merits to the tribal appeals court; and before that court entered a judgment, he also sought an injunction in U.S. District Court, asking U.S. Magistrate Leif B. Erickson to rule the tribal courts had no jurisdiction. Erickson ruled against him, prompting Smith's appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

In August 2004, the three-member panel ruled in Smith's favor, and ordered the case to be heard in federal court.

Before that could occur, however, the appeals court agreed to have an "en banc," panel reconsider the case.

In their 8-3 decision Tuesday, the judges acknowledged the dispute over jurisdiction in such cases is a complicated one, involving sometimes contradictory case law.

However, the majority concluded most case law suggests the tribal court was the proper venue for the case, and that since Smith brought the lawsuit in tribal court, he shouldn't now be allowed to argue whether it had jurisdiction.

"If Smith has confidence in the tribal courts, we see no reason to forbid him from seeking compensation through the tribes' judicial system," Judge Jay. S. Bybee wrote for the majority. "Having made that choice, Smith cannot be heard to complain that the judgment was not in his favor."

In a dissent, Judge Ronald M. Gould, wrote that the panel's ruling "puts our circuit (court) into conflict with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of tribal courts over claims involving tribal nonmembers."