being a fund receiving legislative appropriation(s)-there can be no question it acts in behalf of the State. 121 Further, although State ex rel. State Insurance Fund v. Bone, 1959 OK 135, 344 P.2d 562 held-prior to the GTCA's enactment-that SIF was not within the traditional immunity afforded the sovereign because it was an agency or instrumentality of the State engaged in a business enterprise, as distinguished from a purely governmental function, Bone was decided when a distinction was made between governmental and proprietary functions of governmental entities for sovereign immunity purposes. See Vanderpool v. State, 1983 OK 82, 672 P.2d 1153 (general discussion of governmental/proprietary function issue) and Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation, 1980 OK 60, 610 P.2d 237, 242 (<HOLDING>) The previous distinction existing in sovereign
recognizing the courts treatment of sif in bone involved a holding that sif was a state enterprise engaged in a proprietary function not entitled to sovereign immunity holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity