Hunt v. Windom
Decision Date | 04 September 1992 |
Citation | 604 So.2d 395 |
Parties | Guy HUNT, Governor of Alabama v. Ralph WINDOM. Ex parte Guy HUNT, Governor of Alabama. (In re Ralph WINDOM v. Guy HUNT, Governor of Alabama). 1910197, 1910198. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Robin G. Laurie, Thomas W. Thagard, Jr. and Maury D. Smith of Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, for appellant/petitioner.
Julian McPhillips, Jr. and Kenneth Shinbaum of McPhillips, Hawthorne & Shinbaum, Montgomery, for appellee/respondent.
The plaintiff, Ralph Windom, as a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Alabama, sued Governor Guy Hunt, alleging that he used state funds and resources to maintain a ministry and that his doing so violated the Constitution of Alabama 1901, Article I, § 3. He sought a judgment declaring that certain actions by Hunt were beyond his authority as Governor of Alabama and violated Article I, § 3. He also sought injunctive and equitable relief and an order requiring Governor Hunt to repay, return, or restore to the State of Alabama all taxpayers' monies and resources expended in violation of law.
The Governor moved to dismiss on the following grounds: that the circuit court had no subject matter jurisdiction, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert the claims specified in the complaint.
The plaintiff noticed the Governor's deposition and sought the production of all state and federal income tax returns filed by the Governor since January 25, 1987. In his request for production, the plaintiff stated that he believes that the discovery is relevant or will lead to the discovery of relevant information. The Governor moved for a protective order, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to the discovery sought.
The trial court denied the Governor's motion to dismiss and held a hearing on the discovery issue. The trial judge ordered the Governor to produce his income tax returns from 1987 to the present, under seal, to counsel for the plaintiff. The court entered a protective order with respect to the discovery of the tax returns, which provides:
The Governor sought permission, under Rule 5, Ala.R.App.P., to appeal from these two interlocutory orders of the trial court, and, as an alternative, petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial judge to vacate both orders. This Court granted permission to appeal. This opinion addresses both the appeal and the mandamus petition.
We affirm the interlocutory order appealed from and deny the petition for the writ of mandamus.
The Governor argues that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss this action, contending that the plaintiff has no standing to challenge his actions. He contends that only the Governor or the attorney general has authority to sue on the cause of action alleged in the complaint. This argument is without merit. A similar argument was made and rejected in Zeigler v. Baker, 344 So.2d 761 (Ala.1977), where this Court held that the action would lie and stated:
More recently, in Lee v. Bronner, 404 So.2d 627 (Ala.1981), the Court again rejected the argument that only the Governor or the attorney general may bring an action to challenge the illegal expenditure of state funds, and in that case the Court quoted from Zeigler v. Baker, supra:
" "
404 So.2d at 629 ( ).
It is not surprising that other states have recognized taxpayer suits to redress alleged wrongdoing by government officials, but inasmuch as the right is firmly established in Alabama law, we need not look elsewhere for authority to affirm the trial court's refusal to dismiss this action.
We now turn to the discovery issue, where the standard of review is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. This Court has on many occasions held that the trial courts have very broad discretion regarding discovery matters under Rule 26, A.R.Civ.P. Ex parte Allstate Ins. Co., 401 So.2d 749, 751 (Ala.1981). In Campbell v. Regal Typewriter Co., 341 So.2d 120 (Ala.1976) (holding modified by Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Shaw, 524 So.2d 586 (Ala.1987), we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zaden v. Elkus
...occasions held that the trial courts have very broad discretion regarding discovery matters under Rule 26, Ala.R.Civ.P." Hunt v. Windom, 604 So.2d 395, 397 (Ala.1992). III. Analysis Initially, we note that Zaden could have sought relief on these issues before trial by filing a petition for ......
-
Broxton v. Siegelman
...agree that a taxpayer has standing to sue where the taxpayer is challenging the expenditure of state funds, see, e.g., Hunt v. Windom, 604 So.2d 395 (Ala.1992). But the parties disagree on the question whether Broxton offered substantial evidence indicating that state funds were being used,......
-
Beckerle v. Moore
...that Knutson sub silentio overruled Powers, the taxpayers read too much into the dicta of Knutson. The taxpayers also cite Hunt v. Windom, 604 So.2d 395 (Ala.1992), in support of their contention that Powers has been impliedly overruled. In Hunt, a taxpayer sued the Governor of Alabama, all......
-
Knutson v. Bronner
...of the RSA has standing to bring an action against the chief executive officer of the RSA. The plaintiffs also rely on Hunt v. Windom, 604 So.2d 395 (Ala.1992), in support of their argument on the standing question. In Hunt, "[t]he plaintiff, Ralph Windom, as a citizen and taxpayer of the S......