Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir.1992) (takings claim against the city based directly on the Constitution was barred because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could be utilized instead), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1081, 113 S.Ct. 1049, 122 L.Ed.2d 357 (1993). {34} The South Dakota Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals also examined the same question that we address here. See Benson v. State, 710 N.W.2d 131 (S.D.2006); Boise Cascade, 164 Or.App. 114, 991 P.2d 563; SDDS, Inc. v. State, 650 N.W.2d 1, 9 (S.D.2002). Both held that sovereign immunity does not bar just compensation claims brought against the state in state court, even after the Alden decision. See also First Union Nat. Bank v. Hi Ho Mall Shopping Ventures, Inc., 273 Conn. 287, 869 A.2d 1193, 1197-98 (2005) (<HOLDING>). {35} In Boise Cascade, 991 P.2d at 565, a
holding that state sovereign immunity did not bar a claim based on bankruptcy proceedings under article i section 8 clause 4 because states agreed in the plan of the convention to be subject to such suits holding a foreclosure claim on a municipal tax lien asserted against the state was barred by sovereign immunity but sovereign immunity would not bar the bank from seeking just compensation for the states taking of its property as a result of the allegedly unpaid taxes under the takings clause as applied to the states under the fourteenth amendment holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added