With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by statute or legislative resolution. Pelzel, 77 S.W.3d at 248. The consent must be expressed by “clear and unambiguous language.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (Vernon Supp.2004); Pelzel, 77 S.W.3d at 248; City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1995). Accordingly, we must determine whether the Legislature has by clear and unambiguous language in the Local Government Code’s “sue and be sued” provisions waived immunity to suits against municipalities. See Barfield, 898 S.W.2d at 291 (stating that clear-and-unambiguous requirement for waiving immunity applies to governmental entities other than the state). Waiver will be found only if the statute in question would be meaningless unless immunity were waived. See Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>)- In the instant case, to construe the “sue and

A: holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity
B: holding an antiretaliation statute meaningless absent waiver of sovereign immunity
C: holding that state of nevada was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity
D: holding that state of minnesota was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity
B.