# Etowah County Commission v. Grant

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · March 9, 2007 · 10 So. 3d 1009

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9653745

## Case

- **Full name:** ETOWAH COUNTY COMMISSION and Barry Gargus, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Etowah County Commission v. Vicki GRANT, Todd Entrekin, Scott Hassell, and Johnny Grant
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 9, 2007
- **Citations:** 10 So. 3d 1009; 2007 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 164; 2007 WL 704902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thompson
- **Judges:** Moore, Thomas, Thompson, Pittman, Bryan
- **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/9653745

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that deputy sheriffs were “in the service of the county,” rather than “in the service of the state,” for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under AlaCode §§ 36-21-4 or - 4.1, distinguishing Whitten and Mack, supra

## Opinion text

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the main opinion based on the precedent from this court and our supreme court’s analysis of issues regarding the overtime pay of deputy sheriffs pursuant to § 36-21-4.1, Ala.Code 1975. See Hale v. Randolph County Comm’n, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), and Geneva County Comm’n v. Tice, 578 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1991). I write specially to note that the legislature could resolve this issue by clarifying whether it intended § 36-21-4 or § 36-21-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, to govern the overtime pay of deputy sheriffs.
PITTMAN, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9653745. Public record. Not legal advice.