Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Relief and Retirement Fund v. Sears, 803 S.W.2d 747, 749 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990). In Irving, the court also held that spendthrift provisions “are limited to protection of the benefits from the annuitant’s creditors and assignees.” The wife was held to be neither a creditor nor an assignee, but the owner of a community interest in the fund. Id. Not only was Coppola’s interest in his ORPA assignable, but it was in fact validly pledged to secure Beeson’s alimony by the terms of the divorce decree, and the security interest was perfected, in lieu of U.C.C. compliance, by the divorce judgment. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 9.104(8) (excepting interest created by court judgment from the perfection requirements of Article 9); Goetz v. Goetz, 567 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1978) (<HOLDING>). Coppola next asserts that the ORPA is exempt 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time (B) holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity (C) holding that a debtors right in collateral may be transferred by court order (D) holding that a district court order denying anonymity to the parties is a collateral order (E) recognizing collateral attack on void order
Output (English): holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity