fund would be depleted, then immunity should be applied on the theory that, in fact, the State is the real party in interest because it would answer the judgment. This doctrine was first announced in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945) and was more recently reiterated and emphasized in Regents of the University of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997)(“The question whether a money judgment against a state instrumentality or official would be enforceable against the State is of considerable importance to any evaluation of the relationship between the State and the entity or individual being sued.”) and Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 48, 115 S.Ct. 394, 404, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994)(<HOLDING>). The Colorado General Assembly has created a
holding that doc is entitled to sovereign immunity under  14 because a judgment against it would be paid from the treasury of the state recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment