principles immunity in Alabama

2008Compare, e.g., Byrd v. Lamar, 846 So.2d 334 (Ala.2002) (holding that acts of promissory fraud—which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts— were not protected by state-agent immunity); Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that state-agent immunity was not available to a county employee who sued the plaintiff and had him arrested for operating without a business license because the evidence showed that, in so doing, the defendant acted with `malice, willfullness, or ... so beyond his authority that sovereign immunity w

2008Com.pare, e.g., Byrd v. Lamar, 846 So.2d 334 (Ala.2002) (holding that acts of promissory fraud — which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts— were not protected by state-agent immunity); Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that state-agent immunity was not available to a county employee who sued the plaintiff and had him arrested for operating without a business license because the evidence showed that, in so doing, the defendant acted with ‘malice, willfullness, or ... so beyond his authority that sovereign immunit

2008Compare, e.g., Byrd v. Lamar, 846 So.2d 334 (Ala.2002) (holding that acts of promissory fraud—which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts— were not protected by state-agent immunity); Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that state-agent immunity was not available to a county employee who sued the plaintiff and had him arrested for operating without a business license because the evidence showed that, in so doing, the defendant acted with `malice, willfullness, or ... so beyond his authority that sovereign immunity w

2008Com.pare, e.g., Byrd v. Lamar, 846 So.2d 334 (Ala.2002) (holding that acts of promissory fraud — which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts— were not protected by state-agent immunity); Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274, 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (holding that state-agent immunity was not available to a county employee who sued the plaintiff and had him arrested for operating without a business license because the evidence showed that, in so doing, the defendant acted with ‘malice, willfullness, or ... so beyond his authority that sovereign immunit

1990Dill relies chiefly on Kansas City, Memphis Birmingham R.R. v. Robertson , 109 Ala. 296 , 19 So. 432 (1895), in which an employer owed an employee for 21 1/2 days of work and the employee assigned part of that right to Robertson.

1982In an uninsured motorist case, this court recently wrote: "Generally, a provision of an insurance policy requiring the filing of a written claim or notice may be waived by any act or pattern of conduct by the insurer or its authorized agents which reasonably tends to create a belief in the mind of the claimant under the policy that notice or proofs of loss will be unnecessary...." Freeman v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., 395 So.2d 1014, 1017 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 1017 (Ala.1981).

1969Webb v. Bank of Brewton, 265 Ala. 568 , 93 So.2d 154 .

1969Webb v. Bank of Brewton, 265 Ala. 568 , 93 So.2d 154 .

1957Durr Drug Co. v. Aeree, supra. It is said in Russell v. Peavy, 131 Ala. 563 , 32 So. 492 , that the “wife can not be estopped to deny her want of power or to set up the invalidity of her deed executed by her for such purpose [to secure the husband’s debt], unless there has been on her part some positive acts of fraud, or concealment and suppression which, in law, is equivalent thereto”.

1946As stated by Carr, J., in Brown v. State. * “The term res gestae means ‘the thing done; transactions; essential circumstances surrounding the subject.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, 3 Ed., p. 1539. “ ‘Acts or declarations, to be admissible under the principle of res gestae, must be substantially contemporaneous with the main fact under consideration, and so closely connected with it as to illustrate its character.’ Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27 , 64 So. 309, 310 .

1946As stated by Carr, J., in Brown v. State. * “The term res gestae means ‘the thing done; transactions; essential circumstances surrounding the subject.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, 3 Ed., p. 1539. “ ‘Acts or declarations, to be admissible under the principle of res gestae, must be substantially contemporaneous with the main fact under consideration, and so closely connected with it as to illustrate its character.’ Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27 , 64 So. 309, 310 .

1940And that no consideration of the principles of waiver or estoppel stand in the way of plaintiff’s recovery, is well settled by the case of Hamilton v. Edmundson, 235 Ala. 97, 177 So. 743 , wherein numerous authorities are reviewed.

1940And that no consideration of the principles of waiver or estoppel stand in the way of plaintiff’s recovery, is well settled by the case of Hamilton v. Edmundson, 235 Ala. 97, 177 So. 743 , wherein numerous authorities are reviewed.