# Lisle Co. v. Phenix City Board of Education

> Supreme Court of Alabama · October 19, 2012 · 109 So. 3d 631

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4799645

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte PHENIX CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION. (In re The Lisle Company, Inc. v. Phenix City Board of Education)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 19, 2012
- **Citations:** 109 So. 3d 631; 2012 Ala. LEXIS 133; 2012 WL 5077227
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bolin
- **Judges:** Bolin, Main, Malone, Murdock, Woodall
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4799645

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that state agencies “have absolute immunity from suit, not simply immunity from certain claims.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)

## Opinion text

BOLIN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur fully with the main opinion. I write specially to quote from the Phenix City Board of Education’s reply brief as to what should be the denouement of this mandamus relief, as well as future similar proceedings involving sovereign immunity under § 14, Ala. Const.1901:
“To defeat the prohibition of § 14, the State official, and not the State agency (emphasis added [in reply brief]), must be the named defendant and the facts of the litigation must fit into one of the recognized ‘exceptions.’ If those requirements are not met, the trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction. Because it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court cannot allow amendments to add the State official as a named defendant. Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation, 6 So.3d 1126 (Ala.2008) ...; [Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation, 978 So.2d 17 (Ala.2007)].”
(Petitioner’s reply brief, pp. 10-11.)
Such is the path plaintiffs must take to scale the “ ‘almost invincible’ ” “ ‘wall’ of [sovereign] immunity” and imbue a trial court with the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to determine whether an action against the State of Alabama or one of its agencies falls within one of the six categories of actions not prohibited by Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const.1901. Board of Sch. Comm’rs of Mobile Cnty. v. Weaver, 99 So.3d 1210, 1217 (Ala.2012) (quoting Alabama State Docks v. Saxon, 631 So.2d 943, 946 (Ala.1994)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4799645. Public record. Not legal advice.