discretionary immunity will not include decisions made in bad faith, beyond the board's authority, or under a mistaken impression of law
How later courts described this case
- discretionary immunity will not include decisions made in bad faith, beyond the board's authority, or under a mistaken impression of law
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by Ryan v. Hayes, 831 So. 2d 21 (2002)
We today overrule Donahoo to the extent that it announced a rule of duty that comprehensively and indiscriminately embraced all State officials, rather than just parole officials, the special class of State officials to which its rationale was directed; therefore, we must remand this case for further consideration.
The opinion
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority that plaintiff has stated a cause of action consistent with the decisions this Court has made in this field of the law, I would not reach the question of duty at this stage in the litigation. Sellers v. Thompson , 452 So.2d 460 (Ala. 1984); Rigby v. Auburn University , 448 So.2d 345 (Ala. 1984); Gill v. Sewell , 356 So.2d 1196 (Ala. 1978); Unzicker v. State , 346 So.2d 931 (Ala. 1977). As strange as it may seem, both parties agreed at oral argument that they had not engaged in discovery before the circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants. Because of the far-reaching ramifications of this decision, I would remand this case to allow both sides to engage in extensive discovery to determine if the defendants acted in bad faith, beyond or in excess of their authority, negligently or wantonly, or under a mistaken impression of the good-time law when they released the two prisoners involved here before they served their lawful terms. A flushing out of the facts may reveal that the allegations of the complaint do not comport with the facts. Then, and only then, would we reach the issue of duty dealt with in the majority holding.
FAULKNER, J., concurs.