Opinion

Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

  • 570 So. 2d 675
  • 1990 Ala. LEXIS 913
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Oct 12, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Steagall
On the bench
Adams, Almon, Hornsby, Houston, Jones, Maddox, Shores, Steagall
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.8%

holding that the attorney general had the authority to dismiss legal proceedings over the objection of an executive agency: “As the state’s chief legal officer, the attorney-general has power, both under common law and by statute, to make any disposition of the state’s litigation that he deems for its best interest.”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the attorney general had the authority to dismiss legal proceedings over the objection of an executive agency: “As the state’s chief legal officer, the attorney-general has power, both under common law and by statute, to make any disposition of the state’s litigation that he deems for its best interest.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

STEAGALL, Justice

(dissenting).

The Governor is the highest constitutional officer in this state. Our Constitution provides that “the supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled 'the Governor of the state of Alabama.’ ” Article V, § 113, Alabama Constitution of 1901. “The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Article V, § 120.

I believe that this Court would be correct and wise to allow the Governor to make important executive decisions affecting the lives and health of our citizens. Indeed, this is required by our Constitution.

This view is not inconsistent with the right of the attorney general to intervene in a case when he disagrees with the action of a state agency. The Supreme Court of Mississippi stated this position in State ex rel. Attain v. Mississippi Public Service Comm’n, 418 So.2d 779, 784 (Miss. 1982):

“The unique position of the Attorney General requires that when his views differ from or he finds himself at odds with an agency, then he must allow the assigned counsel or specially appointed counsel to represent the agency unfettered and uninfluenced by the Attorney General’s personal opinion. If the public interest is involved, he may intervene to protect it.”

I think this position is practical and is in the best interests of all the people of this state. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

MADDOX, J., concurs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.