spreading the cost of the benefit over state taxpayers because all taxpayers benefited from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- spreading the cost of the benefit over state taxpayers because all taxpayers benefited from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff
- in an action against the State of Alabama and the City of Montgomery arising out of improperly verified traffic tickets, this Court awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs' counsel because the action resulted in a significant contribution to the integrity of the system of jurisprudence and because the lawsuit ended an improper practice; "The fact that this litigation . . . has not produced a monetary recovery does not preclude an award of attorney fees."
- awarding attorney fees under a common-benefit theory because the general public benefited when the action changed the practice of issuing traffic tickets without an officer's sworn statement
- trial court entered summary judgment for plaintiffs as to one of two subclasses only
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Calhoun County Com'n v. Hooks, 728 So. 2d 625 (1997)
We also distinguished Brown and Bell on the ground that the actions of the defendants in those cases were "reprehensible" or were undertaken "in bad faith." 579 So.2d at 648, 649.
The opinion
I dissent in part because I want to state clearly my views concerning the outcome of this case. Although the facts in this case are somewhat different from those in Ex parte Dison , 469 So.2d 662 (Ala. 1984), the bottom line is that the class of plaintiffs in the instant case was required to go to trial or plead guilty without a properly verified complaint. This is absolutely forbidden by law, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter its orders under the facts in this case. That being the case, the convictions of the plaintiff class members should be held for naught and expunged from the records of the trial court. I concur in the Court's conclusion that even though the plaintiff class did not prevail, the plaintiffs' attorney performed a great service to the State of Alabama in correcting an evil that went to the very heart of American jurisprudence. It appears that the plaintiffs' attorney had to incur expenses for notification of the members of the class and obviously spent a great deal of time in achieving the result in this case. In addition to the cases cited by the majority, namely, Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. , 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala. 1985), and Peebles v. Miley , 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983), see, also, Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. , 433 F.2d 421 , 429-30 (8th Cir. 1970), for a case reaching a result similar to that reached here regarding attorney fees. The mere fact of the plaintiff's not creating a fund from which a fee could be paid should not be a bar to awarding an appropriate attorney fee where the efforts of the plaintiff's counsel have corrected a wrong that may not have been corrected but for his efforts.
JONES and ALMON, JJ., concur.