Murphy v. City of Mobile
| Citation | 504 So.2d 243 |
| Parties | Michael Thomas MURPHY v. CITY OF MOBILE, et al. 85-685. |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1987 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
John Grow, Mobile, for appellant.
Roderick P. Stout of Stout & Roebuck, Mobile, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Mobile County denying the petition for a writ of mandamus to the City Council of the City of Mobile ordering the council to give effect to a council resolution appointing Murphy to the office of municipal judge.
The City of Mobile's municipal court operates with two part-time municipal judges, who are appointed by the City Council.
Both parties concede that the City Council has the power of appointment to the office of municipal judge. The sole issue is whether this power of appointment is governed by the five-vote requirement of § 11-44C-28, Code 1975, or by the majority-vote provision of § 12-14-30(a), Code. There are seven members on the Mobile City Council.
We hold that the City Council's power to appoint municipal judges is governed by § 12-14-30(a), Code, and we reverse the trial court's order denying the writ.
After the expiration of the term of one municipal judge, a resolution was presented to the City Council, at a regular council meeting, nominating Murphy for appointment to that municipal judge position. Four members of the seven-member council voted in favor of the resolution; three voted against it. The presiding officer of the council declared that the resolution had failed, since it did not receive five votes. This decision was based upon § 11-44C-28, Code, which provides:
"The affirmative vote of at least five members of the council shall be sufficient for the passage of any resolution, bylaw, ordinance, or the transaction of any business of any sort by the said council or the exercise of any of the powers conferred upon it by the terms of this chapter or bylaw, or which may hereafter be conferred upon it." (Emphasis added.)
This applies only to Class 2 municipalities, those having a population between 175,000 and 399,999.
Amendment No. 328, Constitution of Alabama 1901 (the Judicial Article), provides that the judicial power of the State shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of various courts, including "such municipal courts as may be provided by law." § 6.065 of the Judicial Article provides: "Municipal judges shall be appointed and vacancies filled by the governing body of the municipality, in accordance with uniform terms, conditions and procedures as may be provided by law...." (Emphasis added.)
Amendment No. 328 of the Constitution was proclaimed ratified December 27, 1973 (Proclamation Register No. 3, p. 32).
Pursuant to Act No. 1205, Acts of Alabama 1975, § 8-101 ( § 12-14-1, Code), a municipal court was established for each municipality within the state, subject to an exception which is not applicable in this case. Section 8-102 of that Act ( § 12-14-30, Code) provides:
"(a) The governing body of the municipality shall, by vote of a majority of its members appoint judges of the municipal court." (Emphasis added.)
The remainder of this section sets out the terms of such municipal judges and certain conditions and procedures involving such judges.
Section 12-14-30(a) is specific. It relates only to the appointment of municipal judges. Section 11-44C-28 is general and could relate to anything. There is a rule of statutory construction that specific provisions relating to specific subjects are understood as exceptions to general provisions relating to general subjects. Bouldin v. City of Homewood, 277 Ala. 665, 174 So.2d 306 (1965); Geter v. United States Steel Corp., 264 Ala. 94, 84 So.2d 770 (1956). Therefore, we interpret the majority-vote requirement pertaining to the appointment of municipal judges as an exception to the five-vote requirement for the adoption of other kinds of ordinances. Since we interpret § 12-14-30(a) as being an exception to § 11-44C-28, it is not necessary to decide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Ted's Game Enterprises
...specific subject is regarded as an exception to, and will prevail over, a general statute relating to a broad subject. Murphy v. City of Mobile, 504 So.2d 243 (Ala.1987); Bouldin v. City of Homewood, 277 Ala. 665, 174 So.2d 306 Ex parte Jones Mfg. Co., 589 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.1991). The sta......
-
Ex parte Ted's Game Enterprises, No. 1021125 (AL 5/28/2004), 1021125.
...subject is regarded as an exception to, and will prevail over, a general statute relating to a broad subject. Murphy v. City of Mobile, 504 So. 2d 243 (Ala. 1987); Bouldin v. City of Homewood, 277 Ala. 665, 174 So. 2d 306 Ex parte Jones Mfg. Co., 589 So. 2d 208, 211 (Ala. 1991). The statute......
-
City of Birmingham v. Graffeo
...treated will be considered as exceptions to the general provisions. Miller v. State, 249 Ala. 14, 29 So.2d 411 (1947); Murphy v. City of Mobile, 504 So.2d 243 (Ala.1987). The opinion in the Miller case [quotes from the earlier case of Herring v. Griffin, 211 Ala. 225, 226, 100 So. 202, 203 ......
-
Young v. McLeod
...to recommend the hiring and firing of "principals, teachers, and all other regular employees of the [school] board"); Murphy v. City of Mobile, 504 So.2d 243 (Ala.1987) (holding that a statute establishing a majority-vote requirement for the appointment of municipal judges by a seven-member......