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.
11 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Russellgreen2 sentences2013See also Ex parte Russell, 31 So.3d 694, 696 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (actions seeking a declaratory judgment or actions seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing an unconstitutional law are not subject to sovereign immunity). 2011See also Ex parte Russell, 31 So.3d 694, 696 (Ala. Civ.App.2009) (actions seeking a declaratory judgment or actions seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing an unconstitutional law are not subject to sovereign immunity). | 3 | 3 |
Bedsole v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2013In Watkins v. Mitchem, 50 So.3d 485 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), this court addressed the application of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity to state employees in the context,of § 1983 actions, stating: “In. the defendants’ answer, they stated: ‘The defendants named in their official capacity plead the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.’ Sovereign immunity, arising pursuant to the Alabama Constitution of 1901, § 14, provides no protection to the defendants because ‘[sjection 14 immunity has no applicability to federal-law claims.’ Bedsole v. Clark, 33 So.3d 9, 13 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (rejec 2011“In the defendants’ answer, they stated: ‘The defendants named in their official capacity plead the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.’ Sovereign immunity, arising pursuant to the Alabama Constitution of 1901, § 14, provides no protection to the defendants because ‘[sjection 14 immunity has no applicability to federal-law claims.’ Bedsole v. Clark, 33 So.3d 9, 13 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (rejecting defendants’ argument that they were entitled to a summary judgment on plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim on the basis of sovereign immunity). | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Woodgreen2 sentences2007Standard of Review As this Court has consistently held, the writ of mandamus is a “ ‘drastic and extraordinary writ that will be issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.’ ” Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705, 708 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte United Serv. 2007Standard of Review As this Court has consistently held, the writ of mandamus is a "`drastic and extraordinary writ that will be issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.'" *21 Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705, 708 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte United Serv. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission
green
2 sentences2018In Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission , 11 So.3d 189 , 191-92 (Ala. 2008), this Court stated the following well established law regarding sovereign or State immunity: "Section 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides: '[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.' (Emphasis added.) 'The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly impregnable.' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp. , 835 So.2d 137 , 142 (Ala. 2002). 2018In Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission , 11 So.3d 189 , 191-92 (Ala. 2008), this Court stated the following well established law regarding sovereign or State immunity: "Section 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides: '[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.' (Emphasis added.) 'The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly impregnable.' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp. , 835 So.2d 137 , 142 (Ala. 2002). | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Patterson v. Gladwin Corp.
green
2 sentences2018In Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission , 11 So.3d 189 , 191-92 (Ala. 2008), this Court stated the following well established law regarding sovereign or State immunity: "Section 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides: '[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.' (Emphasis added.) 'The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly impregnable.' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp. , 835 So.2d 137 , 142 (Ala. 2002). 2018In Alabama Department of Corrections v. Montgomery County Commission , 11 So.3d 189 , 191-92 (Ala. 2008), this Court stated the following well established law regarding sovereign or State immunity: "Section 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides: '[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.' (Emphasis added.) 'The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly impregnable.' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp. , 835 So.2d 137 , 142 (Ala. 2002). | 3 | 2017–2018 |
State Hwy. Dept. v. Milton Const. Co.
green
2 sentences2017On appeal, the State Highway Department argued that, on the basis of sovereign immunity, it could not be made to pay the judgment. 586 So.2d at 875 . 2016On appeal, the State Highway Department argued that, on the basis of sovereign immunity, it could not be made to pay the judgment. 586 So.2d at 875 . | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Watkins v. Mitchem
green
1 sentence2013In Watkins v. Mitchem, 50 So.3d 485 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), this court addressed the application of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity to state employees in the context,of § 1983 actions, stating: “In. the defendants’ answer, they stated: ‘The defendants named in their official capacity plead the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.’ Sovereign immunity, arising pursuant to the Alabama Constitution of 1901, § 14, provides no protection to the defendants because ‘[sjection 14 immunity has no applicability to federal-law claims.’ Bedsole v. Clark, 33 So.3d 9, 13 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (rejec | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stark v. Troy State University
green
1 sentence1997Our supreme court affirmed, holding that "an action seeking to compel [the defendants] to perform their legal duties will not be barred by . . . sovereign immunity; however, the action for compensatory damages cannot be maintained." Stark , 514 So.2d at 50 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.