With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 522 (noting that “a governmental entity would not, in settling a suit for which immunity has been waived, undertake an obligation that exposes it to liability much greater or different than that which it faced from the original claim.”). The trial court therefore properly granted Patterson’s plea to the jurisdiction on the Porrettos’ claim for breach of contract against him. The Local Government Code Relying on Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Brownsville Navigation District, the Porrettos contend that the Legislature generally has waived sovereign immunity for claims against park boards under section 306.041(a) of the Local Government Code, which provides that a park board “may sue and be sued in its own name.” Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Brownsville Navig. Dist, 458 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Tex.1970) (<HOLDING>). After the Porrettos filed their brief in this

A: recognizing the same rule in texas courts
B: holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission
C: holding that such statutory language is quite plain and gives general legislative consent for a district to be sued in the courts of texas in the same manner as other defendants
D: holding that if statutory language is plain and unambiguous this court will not look beyond the same to divine legislative intent
C.