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 concur with that part of the majority opinion denying the relief sought by the plaintiffs. I agree that the plaintiffs have not shown that the convictions should be vacated or that the fines paid should be returned.
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion remanding the cause for an award of an attorney fee. I can see no sound reason to require the State of Alabama to pay an attorney fee for privately retained counsel in such a post-conviction proceeding.