set aside by the district court.” 14C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3738 (3d ed.1998); see also 28 U. sion of the state court prior to removal as the decision of the district court that inherited the entire case upon removal. 2. The state comt did not en- in granting the motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The state court dismissed all claims against the Cabinet and the two state officials in their official capacities on the basis of sovereign immunity. This was not error. Cabinet members and state officials are considered arms of the state, generally protected by sovereign immunity. Florida Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n., 450 U.S. 147, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Ford Motor Co. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 323
holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims