holding that officers were "entitled to immunity because they were engaged in an 'arrest or attempted arrest,' which is a discretionary function requiring the exercise of judgment"
How later courts described this case
- holding that officers were "entitled to immunity because they were engaged in an 'arrest or attempted arrest,' which is a discretionary function requiring the exercise of judgment"
- holding that a plaintiff who alleged that officers fabricated evidence against him could prove that the officers acted maliciously
- noting that § 11-47-190 "provides that a municipality is immune from tort liability," unless one of the exceptions therein applies
- “A municipality cannot be held liable for the intentional torts of its employees. See Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-190.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The trial court properly concluded that discovery was necessary before the pending summary-judgment motion could be adequately addressed. I am aware of no authority requiring the trial court to consider such a motion on a piecemeal basis. Therefore, to the extent this Court grants the petition, I respectfully dissent. Otherwise, I concur in the result.
NABERS, C.J., concurs.