Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the state court. The Illinois legislature enacted the Illinois Court of Claims Act, 705 Ill.Comp.Stat. 50% et seq., which provides for sovereign immunity for the actions brought against the state or its officials unless such a suit is filed in the Illinois Court of Claims. Wells v. Vincennes Univ., 982 F.2d 1147, 1151 (7th Cir.1992). Any state law remedy which may be available to plaintiffs must come in a state court action. See Feldman v. Ho, 171 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir.1999) (finding that, because of the Eleventh Amendment, the plaintiffs claims against the state could not be brought in federal court, and entering judgment against plaintiff without prejudice so that he might file suit in Illinois Court of Claims); see also Magdziak v. Byrd, 96 F.3d 1045, 1048-49 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The court’s determination that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper (B) holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act (C) holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract (D) holding that even though  24 only refers to actions in state court it applies to state claims brought in federal court (E) holding that ethical violations may be relevant to tort claims brought against attorneys
Output (English): holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act