Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 6, 2013No. 1111386Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurdock, Justice

Although I agree with the general thrust of the main opinion, I must concur in the result in part and dissent in part. Specifically, I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment insofar as the trial court refused to order mediation of the claim for attorney fees under state law given the trial court’s correct conclusion that, as to the state-law claims for attorney fees, the defendants enjoy sovereign immunity under Art. I., § 14, of the Alabama Constitution. Where I disagree with the main opinion is in its failure to address the issue of immunity as it relates to the plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Bd. of Educ. v. WaldropSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  2. Atkinson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2007
  3. Working v. Jefferson County Election Commission, 1091055 (Ala. 4-22-2011)Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API