Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Patton v. Blackgreen2 sentences2011However, this quotation omits the word “discretionary” from the language of the Patton Court’s actual opinion, which reads “[tjhus, it is the rare case involving the defense of discretionary immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” (Emphasis added.) The Court elsewhere in Patton discussed the difficulties associated with the application of the discretionary-immunity defense, stating that “[t]he distinction between discretionary functions and ministerial functions is often cloudy and difficult to discern.” 646 So.2d at 10 . 2011The students also argue that the trial court erred by deciding the immunity issue at this time, quoting Patton v. Black, 646 So.2d 8, 10 (Ala.1994): “[I]t is a rare case involving the defense of immunity that would be properly disposed of by dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)” (as quoted in the students’ brief in case no. 1100557, p. 49). | 7 | 10 |
Fontenot v. Bramlettgreen2 sentences2001Funeral Home West Chapel, 700 So.2d 1379, 1381 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985)) (citations omitted). “ ‘[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. 2000In so doing, this Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail.’ “... [I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala.R.Civ.P.].” 646 So.2d at 10 (quoting earlier cases, including Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985) (emphasis in Fontenot) (citations omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Buttsgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Ex parte Butts , 775 So.2d 173 , 177 (Ala. 2000) (" '[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. 2018See, e.g., Ex parte Butts , 775 So.2d 173 , 177 (Ala. 2000) (" '[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. | 2 | 4 |
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Mental Healthgreen2 sentences2025Civ. P.]." ' Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d [173,] 177 [(Ala. 2000)], quoting Patton v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8, 10 (Ala. 1994) (quoting earlier cases)." Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 837 So. 2d 808, 813-14 (Ala. 2002). 2023Civ. P.]." ' Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d [173] at 177 [(Ala. 2000)], quoting Patton v. Black, 646 So. 2d 8, 10 (Ala. 1994) (quoting earlier cases)." Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 837 So. 2d 808, 813-14 (Ala. 2002). | 2 | 3 |
Ryan v. Hayesgreen1 sentence2016In Ryan v. Hayes, 831 So.2d 21, 32 (Ala.2002), our supreme court pointed out that “ ‘[i]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. Brown Service Funeral Home West Chapelgreen1 sentence2001Funeral Home West Chapel, 700 So.2d 1379, 1381 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (quoting Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985)) (citations omitted). “ ‘[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Cranman
green
1 sentence2011That difficulty eventually led this Court to restate the principle of discretionary immunity in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000). 12 Discretionary immunity is not an issue in this case, and, because the defendants have properly raised and argued the state-action-immunity defense in their motions to dismiss, the trial court’s consideration of that defense was consistent with the judicial policy that immunity issues should be decided as early as possible once raised. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex Parte Mobile Cty. Dept. of Human Res.
green
1 sentence2002P. Ex parte Butts, supra , and Ex parte Mobile County Dep't of Human Res., supra . "[I]t is the rare case involving the defense of [State-agent] immunity that would be properly disposed of by a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), [Ala. R. | 1 | 2002–2002 |