Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): V. Conclusion We reverse the trial court’s judgment denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and the Aldermen and Mayor’s motion for summary judgment as to Elizabeth’s whis-tleblower claims. We render judgment that the City, Aldermen, and Mayor are immune from suit on Elizabeth’s whistle-blower claims. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. 1 . Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 554.001-.010 (Vernon 1994 & Supp.2001). 2 . City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 n. 1 (Tex.1993); see also City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653-54 (Tex.1994); Putthoff v. Ancrum, 934 S.W.2d 164, 168 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). 3 . City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara, 904 S.W.2d 655, 656 (Tex.1995); Putthoff, 934 S.W.2d at 174 n. 2. Compare Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that city could not appeal based on sovereign rather than official immunity under section 510145 (B) holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal (C) holding that dismissal pursuant to a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is with prejudice (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 plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official
Output (English): holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity