from federal-court jurisdiction [as] a stringent one.” Id. at 241, 105 S.Ct. 3142. A waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity will be found “only where stated ‘by the most expressive language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction v. Platter (In re Platter), 140 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir.1998) (concluding that state’s claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar action in bankruptcy court to determine discharge of debt because state had initiated adversarial action against debtor); Rose v. United States Dep’t of Educ. (In re Rose), 215 B.R. 755, 762 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1997) (deciding that state waived immunity by filing proofs of claim); cf. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). None of these cases rely on the text of a
holding that utah waived eleventh amendment immunity by causing removal to federal court and litigating merits of 42 usc  1983 action holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that states removal to federal court voluntarily invoked the federal courts jurisdiction waiving eleventh amendment immunity holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983