holding that further discovery was needed before the plaintiffs' wrongful-death action could be dismissed based upon the defendants' claim of State-agent immunity
How later courts described this case
- holding that further discovery was needed before the plaintiffs' wrongful-death action could be dismissed based upon the defendants' claim of State-agent immunity
- adopting the "new test" for determining when State employees sued in their individual capacities are entitled to assert the defense of State-agent immunity, as formulated by a plurality of the Court in Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000)
- stating that officers have the authority to "enforce[ ] ... the criminal laws of the State"
- “As a general rule, a motion to dismiss ‘ “for failure to state a claim is properly granted only when it appears beyond a doubt that the *22 plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.” ’ ” (quoting Patton v. Black, 646 So.2d 8, 10 (Ala.1994), quoting in turn Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson, 371 So.2d 899 (Ala.1979))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Cranman , [Ms. 1971903, June 16, 2000] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2000) (See, J., dissenting), I dissent from the adoption, in this case, of the test for State-agent immunity (also referred to as discretionary-function immunity or qualified immunity) set forth in the main opinion in Ex parte Cranman .