explaining that under the Alabama Constitution, courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against the state
How later courts described this case
- explaining that under the Alabama Constitution, courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against the state
- affirming a summary judgment in favor of two of the three appellees because, on appeal, the appellant presented argument challenging only one of the two grounds upon which those ap-pellees had based their summary-judgment motion
- holding that an inverse-condemnation claim requires a physical taking of property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur, because I am convinced that the absence of any direct physical injury to Willis's property precludes his inverse-condemnation action claiming compensation under § 23 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. To the extent that Foreman v . State , 676 So.2d 303
(Ala. 1995), and Barber v. State , 703 So.2d 314 (Ala. 1997), held that no direct physical injury was required to support such a claim, I agree that those cases should be overruled. However, it must be noted that both of those cases involved property that had been physically damaged by the State's construction activities.