50 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giambrone v. Douglasgreen2 sentences2018"This Court has established a 'burden-shifting' process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. *983 Giambrone v. Douglas , 874 So.2d 1046 , 1052 (Ala. 2003). 2018"This Court has established a 'burden-shifting' process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. *983 Giambrone v. Douglas , 874 So.2d 1046 , 1052 (Ala. 2003). | 18 | 28 |
Ex Parte Estate of Reynoldsgreen2 sentences2017Additionally: " ' " 'This Court has established a "burden-shifting" process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity.' Ex parte Estate of Reynolds , 946 So.2d 450 , 452 (Ala. 2006). 2016Section 6-5-338(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Every peace officer ... shall at all times be deemed to be officers of this state, and as such shall have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in performance of any discretionary function within the line and scope of his or her law enforcement duties.” 2 This Court has determined that “[wjhether a qualified peace officer is due § 6-5-338(a) immunity is now judged by the restatement of State-agent immunity articulated by Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000)....” Hollis, 885 So.2d at 143 . 3 “‘This Court has establi | 12 | 15 |
Ex Parte Cranmangreen2 sentences2016Section 6-5-338(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Every peace officer ... shall at all times be deemed to be officers of this state, and as such shall have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in performance of any discretionary function within the line and scope of his or her law enforcement duties.” 2 This Court has determined that “[wjhether a qualified peace officer is due § 6-5-338(a) immunity is now judged by the restatement of State-agent immunity articulated by Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000)....” Hollis, 885 So.2d at 143 . 3 “‘This Court has establi 2016“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing statement of the rule, a State agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity “(1) when the Constitution or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of this State, or laws, rules, or regulations of this State enacted or promulgated for the purpose of regulating the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or “(2) when the State agent acts willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond his or her authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of the law.” Ex parte Cranman, 7 | 1 | 3 |
Ex Parte Buttsgreen2 sentences2009The Court adopted the Cranman test for State-agent immunity in Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 177-78 (Ala.2000). [[Image here]] “ ‘This Court has established a “burden-shifting” process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity.’ Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 946 So.2d 450, 452 (Ala.2006). 2008In Ex parte Butts , 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000), a majority of this Court adopted the Cranman restatement of the rule governing State-agent immunity. "`We have established a "burden-shifting" process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. | 1 | 2 |
Hollis v. City of Brightongreen2 sentences2010In Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300, 309 (Ala. 2006), this Court modified category (4) of the Cranman test to state: "exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State, including, but not limited to, law-enforcement officers' arresting or attempting to arrest persons, or serving as peace officers under circumstances entitling such officers to immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a), Ala.Code 1975. " "Additionally, this Court has stated: "`This Court has established a "burden-shifting" process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. 2010In Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300, 309 (Ala. 2006), this Court modified category (4) of the Cranman test to state: “exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State, including, but not limited to, law-enforcement officers’ arresting or attempting to arrest persons, or serving as peace officers under circumstances entitling such officers to immunity pursuant to § 6-5-338(a), Ala.Code 1975.” “Additionally, this Court has stated: “ ‘This Court has established a “burden-shifting” process when a party raises the defense of State-agent immunity. | 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 Wood
green
2 sentences2016Ex parte Wood, 852 So.2d 705 (Ala.2002). 2008Ex parte Wood , 852 So.2d 705 (Ala. 2002). | 6 | 2003–2016 |
Howard v. City of Atmore
green
2 sentences2006Under this process, [Gowens] `bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that [the plaintiffs'] claims arise from a function that would entitle [him] to immunity.' 874 So.2d at 1052 . `If [he makes] such a showing, the burden then shifts to [the plaintiffs], who, in order to deny [Gowens] immunity from suit, must establish that [Gowens] acted willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith,' 874 So.2d at 1052 , or that he `was not exercising his . . . judgment in the manner set forth in the examples in Cranman.' Ex parte Hudson , 866 So.2d [1115 , 1118 (Ala. 2003)]." Howard v. City of Atmore , 887 2004In Howard v. City of Atmore , as modified on denial of rehearing, 887 So.2d 201 (Ala.2003), our supreme court stated, "`[w]e have established a "burden-shifting" process when a party raises the defense of [S]tate-agent immunity.' Giambrone v. [ Douglas ], 874 So.2d [1046,] 1052 [(Ala.2003)]. | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Hollis v. City of Brighton
green
1 sentence2016Section 6-5-338(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Every peace officer ... shall at all times be deemed to be officers of this state, and as such shall have immunity from tort liability arising out of his or her conduct in performance of any discretionary function within the line and scope of his or her law enforcement duties.” 2 This Court has determined that “[wjhether a qualified peace officer is due § 6-5-338(a) immunity is now judged by the restatement of State-agent immunity articulated by Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000)....” Hollis, 885 So.2d at 143 . 3 “‘This Court has establi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.