Ingram v. Moody, No. 78-308

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtALMON; TORBERT
Citation382 So.2d 522
Decision Date14 March 1980
Docket NumberNo. 78-308
PartiesHarold INGRAM v. C. W. MOODY et al.

Page 522

382 So.2d 522
Harold INGRAM
v.
C. W. MOODY et al.
No. 78-308.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 14, 1980.
Rehearing Denied April 11, 1980.

Page 523

Frank W. Riggs, Montgomery, for appellant.

William B. Moore, Jr. and James T. Upchurch, III, of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for appellees.

ALMON, Justice.

This is an appeal by Ingram from a judgment of the circuit court granting a directed verdict for the defendants.

Ingram was an employee of the State Forestry Commission. In May of 1977 he filed suit for damages against C. W. Moody, individually and as State Forester of the State of Alabama; Richard Cumbie, individually and as communications chief of the Forestry Commission, and all the members of the State Forestry Commission.

The complaint alleged that:

(3) Without just cause and excuse, the Defendants have heretofore wilfully and maliciously harassed Plaintiff, deprived him of his liberty, and have unlawfully interfered with Plaintiff's right to pursue his chosen means of earning a livelihood. . . .

(4) As a proximate result and consequence of the wilful and malicious acts of the Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged in that he has been deprived of his right to pursue his chosen profession and to enjoy the benefits thereof, and will in the future be caused to lose earnings from his employment, his reputation has been damaged, he has been caused much physical and mental anguish, he has been caused to suffer from hypertension, he has been and will in the future be caused to incur medical expenses, and he has been otherwise damaged.

(5) Defendants have individually performed the wrongful acts complained of herein and, further, have conspired with each other to damage Plaintiff as hereinabove described.

(6) Plaintiff claims punitive damages.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff claims damages as aforesaid.

In April of 1978, Moody sent Ingram notice that his employment was being terminated. The reasons given by Moody for termination were: (1) Ingram's continuous failure to respond to supervision; (2) Ingram's failure to recuse himself from the Telecommunications Board when the Alabama Forestry Commission's new radio system was discussed; and (3) his failure to accomplish work assigned. Ingram chose to retire and his discharge never became effective.

Ingram had been employed by the state since 1950 as a communications technician. He was chief of communications for a time, and was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the entire communications system of the department, which is used primarily to aid in suppressing forest fires. The system in use until 1973 was the "county unit" system.

In 1973 the State Forester appointed a committee to study a new communications system known as a "system...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1979); Tyler v. Whitehead, Mo.App., 583 S.W.2d 240 (1979).......
  • Harrah v. Leverette, Nos. 14321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 7, 1980
    ...374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1979); Tyler v. Whitehead, Mo.App., 583 S.W.2d 240 When th......
  • Terrell v. City of Bessemer
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 27, 1981
    ...1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980); Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980); Ingram v. Moody, 382 So.2d 522 (Ala.1980). On the other hand, by bringing action in United States District Court, the plaintiff was faced with the uncertainty that that cour......
  • Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Public Welfare, Nos. 84-843
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • August 1, 1986
    ...of the district court's reviewing a state agency administrative decision. In support of their position defendants cite Ingram v. Moody, 382 So.2d 522 (Ala.1980). In Ingram the Alabama Supreme Court held that when the petition fails to allege an action under § 1983 and the record before the ......
4 cases
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1979); Tyler v. Whitehead, Mo.App., 583 S.W.2d 240 (1979).......
  • Harrah v. Leverette, Nos. 14321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 7, 1980
    ...374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1979); Tyler v. Whitehead, Mo.App., 583 S.W.2d 240 When th......
  • Terrell v. City of Bessemer
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 27, 1981
    ...1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980); Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980); Ingram v. Moody, 382 So.2d 522 (Ala.1980). On the other hand, by bringing action in United States District Court, the plaintiff was faced with the uncertainty that that cour......
  • Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Public Welfare, Nos. 84-843
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • August 1, 1986
    ...of the district court's reviewing a state agency administrative decision. In support of their position defendants cite Ingram v. Moody, 382 So.2d 522 (Ala.1980). In Ingram the Alabama Supreme Court held that when the petition fails to allege an action under § 1983 and the record before the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT