of all taxes collected in violation of section 22(a). Rather, the Court’s remand instructions invoked only the inherent power of courts to order restitution of those taxes collected “by reason of’ the trial court’s erroneous judgment. When Beatty reached this Court for a third time, the Court acknowledged the conflict it had created by invoking the inherent equitable authority to remedy damages resulting from an erroneous judgment without identifying (or even discussing) whether there was a clear and unequivocal waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity that would allow such a money judgment. Beatty III, 914 S.W.2d at 796. Ultimately, the Court held that it did not need to resolve that issue in Beatty III because MSD’s own ordinance provided the plaintiffs a sufficient remedy. Id. (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court’s holding in the
holding that state of minnesota was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal holding that state of nevada was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity holding that the court need not balance the courts inherent power to impose such a remedy against the states right to be immune from suit  or determine whether the hancock amendment transcends the defense of sovereign immunity recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations