# Ex parte State Board of Education

> Supreme Court of Alabama · September 9, 2016 · 219 So. 3d 604

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4839187

## Case

- **Full name:** EX PARTE STATE OF ALABAMA BOARD OF EDUCATION (In re: Sharper D. Adams v. State of Alabama Board of Education)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 9, 2016
- **Citations:** 219 So. 3d 604
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murdock
- **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Main, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 1 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/4839187

## Opinion text

MURDOCK, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I agree in the main with the analysis set out in the main opinion, and I concur in the result reached. I write separately to comment on two aspects of that opinion.
First, as to footnote 7,- 219 So.3d at 614, I have no objection to the respondents’ reliance on Ex parte Jones, 147 So.3d 415 (Ala.2013), as authority regarding the timeliness of a mandamus petition raising immunity concerns. Nonetheless, I have no objection to the timing of the petition in light of the subject-matter-jurisdiction nature of the issué presented.
Second, I see no need, in order to reach the result that is reached, to adopt the statement quoted by the main opinion from Festa v. Santa Rosa County, Florida, 413 Fed.App’x 182, 185 (11th Cir.2011) (an opinion not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter, 219 So.3d at 616), nor the negative implication that, if any of the listed courts has decided an issue,' the law regarding that issue is necessarily “clearly established” for purposes of determining qualified immunity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4839187. Public record. Not legal advice.