Etowah County Com'n v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 28 September 1990 |
| Citation | 569 So.2d 397 |
| Parties | ETOWAH COUNTY COMMISSION, et al. v. James HAYES, et al. 89-1776. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mary Ann Stackhouse and Larry H. Keener of Floyd, Keener, Cusimano & Roberts, Gadsden, for appellants.
Donald R. Rhea of Rhea, Boyd & Rhea, Gadsden, for appellees.
James W. Webb and Kendrick E. Webb of Webb, Crumpton, McGregor, Sasser, Davis & Alley, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Ass'n of County Com'ns of Alabama.
This expedited appeal from a partial summary judgment, made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., presents the issue whether the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief to the sheriff of Etowah County, requiring the Etowah County Commission to reinstate the funding withheld from the Etowah County Sheriff's Department for the remainder of the 1989-90 fiscal year. Because we agree with the trial court that the Commission's withholding of all funds, which effectively closed the operation of the Sheriff's Department, was an arbitrary and capricious act, we affirm the judgment granting injunctive relief to the extent of, and consistent with, this Court's order of September 6, 1990, as modified by our order of September 13, 1990, 1 staying the judgment pending further proceedings on the remaining issues in the circuit court.
By our judgment in this case, "affirmed as modified," we are not to be understood as expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the controversy, nor are we limiting the trial court's discretionary prerogatives to lift or further modify the stay order, either temporarily or permanently, subject, of course, to further review by this Court at the instance of any party.
Because competent counsel and amicus curiae have forcefully argued their respective positions regarding the trial court's judgment and its rationale therefor, and because these same issues are still before the trial court for final disposition, we deem it proper to comment briefly upon the appropriate role of the judiciary where, as here, the dispute arises in the context of a confrontation between the other two branches of government--the executive and the legislative.
In testing the absolutism of the authority of the legislative branch to appropriate operational funds for the executive branch, the judicial branch of government is constrained not to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature and thus usurp the plenary power of that branch. Finch v. State, 271 Ala. 499, 124 So.2d 825 (1960). Any encroachment in such matters by the judiciary is limited to adjudication of constitutional challenges, allegations of statutory violations, and charges of conduct so arbitrary and capricious as to contravene lawfully constituted authority. Id.
While we do not reject out of hand the "reasonableness" test, as urged by the sheriff, the application of that test, contrary to the sheriff's contention, does not focus solely on what is reasonable from the viewpoint of the sheriff in the operation of his department. The application of the "reasonableness" test takes into account Conceivably, the County Commission may receive budget requests from each of the County's executive departments and may agree that none of the requests is "unreasonable" from the standpoint of each department in the performance of its perceived goals; and, yet, the total of such requests may exceed by millions of dollars the total revenues available to fund the County's budget. Thus, while the Commission is legally mandated to follow statutory guidelines and to establish funding priorities accordingly (see, Shelby County Commission v. Smith, 372 So.2d 1092 (Ala.1979); and Hale v. Randolph County Commission, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1982)), it does not have the burden of proving that any reduction in requested funding is justified because the requests are unreasonable when viewed from the narrow perspective of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.
...however, this Court's jurisdiction and competence are not defined by the importance of the matter presented. See Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala.1990) ("In testing the absolutism of the authority of the legislative branch to appropriate operational funds for the execu......
-
McMilliam v. Monroe County Alabama
...discretion to deny funds to the sheriffs for their operations beyond what is "reasonably necessary.'' See Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 399 (Ala.1990) (per curiam). But at most, this discretion would allow the commission to exert an attenuated and indirect influence over the......
-
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
...however, this Court's jurisdiction and competence are not defined by the importance of the matter presented. See Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala.1990)('In testing the absolutism of the authority of the legislative branch to appropriate operational funds for the execut......
-
Ex parte State of Alabama. ,.
...of § 32-5A-192, I believe that A.L.L. had a strong basis for presenting that argument in this case. 2. Etowah County Comm'n v. Hayes, 569 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala. 1990) ("[T]he judicial branch of government is constrained not to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature and thus usurp......