# Ex Parte Butts

> Supreme Court of Alabama · July 21, 2000 · 775 So. 2d 173

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931802

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Jimmy Butts in Re: Dalton Phillips v. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** July 21, 2000
- **Citations:** 775 So. 2d 173; 2000 WL 1006962
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Maddox
- **Judges:** From, III, Lyons, Maddox, Parts, Rationale, See
- **Cited by:** 267 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/9931802

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that further discovery was needed before the plaintiffs' wrongful-death action could be dismissed based upon the defendants' claim of State-agent immunity
- stating that officers have the authority to "enforce[ ] ... the criminal laws of the State"

## Opinion text

I concur as to Parts I and II. Regarding Part III, I concur in the result but dissent from the rationale. The state of the record in this case is similar to the state of the record in Patton v. Black , 646 So.2d 8 (Ala. 1994). In Patton , I stated, "I was almost persuaded that the defendant was correct in her argument that [the record showed] that the plaintiff did not state any set of facts upon which relief could be granted . . . ." 646 So.2d at 11 (Maddox, J., concurring in the result). That is the situation I find myself in with this case; consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority in Part III, as I did in Patton , 646 So.2d at 10 . However, because the majority adopts the formulation of the test for determining when State employees sued in their individual capacities are entitled to assert the defense of State-agent immunity, that was set out in Ex parte Cranman , [Ms. 1971903, June 16, 2000], ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 2000), I must respectfully dissent from the rationale of Part III. Therefore, as to Parts I and II, I concur; but as to Part III I concur in the result but dissent from the rationale.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931802. Public record. Not legal advice.