# Tyson v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Alabama · February 4, 2010 · 43 So. 3d 587

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859515

## Case

- **Full name:** John M. Tyson, Jr. v. MacOn County Greyhound Park, Inc., D/B/A Victoryland.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** February 4, 2010
- **Citations:** 43 So. 3d 587; 2010 Ala. LEXIS 19; 2010 WL 415271
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** Lyons, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Smith, Murdock, Cobb, Woodall
- **Cited by:** 15 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/4859515

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, with exceptions not applicable here, courts are without subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate in civil proceedings matters that should be decided in criminal proceedings or related forfeiture actions for which the legislature has provided
- noting that a forfeiture statute applicable to gambling devices, § 13A-12-30, Ala.Code 1975, is "a provision found in the Criminal Code,” and disallowing an independent proceeding initiated by the defendant that would have preempted a potential forfeiture action by the State
- holding that, with exceptions not applicable here, courts "may not interfere with the enforcement of criminal laws through a civil action"

## Opinion text

SMITH, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write separately to express my basis for joining the main opinion. As I understand it, the main opinion rests on the *592 conclusion that the “‘only effect [of the declaratory-judgment action filed by Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a VictoryLand (hereinafter “VictoryLand”),] would be to decide matters which properly should be decided in a criminal action.’” 43 So.3d at 589 (quoting 22A Am.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgments § 57 (2003) (emphasis added)). That conclusion, in turn, rests on the conclusion that VietoryLand’s declaratory-judgment action is solely an attempt to use a civil proceeding to interfere with a criminal investigation.
I do not read the main opinion as holding that the trial court would be without subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an action, such as the action filed in State ex rel. Tyson v. Ted’s Game Enterprises, 893 So.2d 355 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), aff'd, Ex parte Ted’s Game Enterprises, 893 So.2d 376 (Ala.2004), in which it cannot be said that the action is solely an attempt to use a civil proceeding to interfere with a criminal investigation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859515. Public record. Not legal advice.