Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Office Defendants The court also concludes that the Sheriffs Office defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs claims for negligence and wrong ful death. Even if the court assumes that the defendant deputies were somehow negligent in the manner in which they handled Harvey, the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the deputies were engaged in an essential governmental function involving the exercise of discretion and judgment at all times relevant to the complaint, and thus, that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 321 S.E.2d 657, 663 (1984) (setting forth the factors considered for sovereign immunity); see also Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 400 S.E.2d 184, 187 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Shaffer v. City of Hampton, 780 F.Supp. 342, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity (B) holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity (C) holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity (D) holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity (E) holding that a city police officers negligent actions involved in the pursuit of a speeding automobile were entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity
Output (English): holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity