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 respectfully dissent. Injuring Willis's property without compensating him does violate § 23, Alabama Constitution of 1901, which does apply to the UNA, in that injuring the property is taking it to the extent of the injury. When one man has killed another, we say that the killer has taken the other's life. This ordinary English usage is a good reason why we should not only reverse the summary judgment against Willis but also respect our own precedents of Foreman v. State , 676 So.2d 303 (Ala. 1995), and Barber v. State , 703 So.2d 314 (Ala. 1997), as well as the doctrine of stare decisis .