Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to distinguish the Fisher and Sweetman holdings by relying upon the importance that SDCL 31-2-34 played in their outcome. City claims that these holdings only apply to those instances where a subcontractor is suing the State, not to instances where a subcontractor is suing a municipality. This reliance is misplaced. The jurisdictional implications of SDCL 31-2-34 merely played a role in these holdings because the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article III, Section 27 of the South Dakota Constitution, prohibit lawsuits against the State in the absence of an express abrogation of its sovereign immunity. The South Dakota Legislature has provided express abrogation of immunity for municipalities in this context. See SDCL 9-12-1 2d 915, 917-18 (S.D.1988) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 17.] City also attempts to argue that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding section 101065 is exception to waiver of governmental immunity (B) holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability (C) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional (D) holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary (E) recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit
Output (English): holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional