Raley v. Main
Decision Date | 21 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 1050547.,1050460.,1050553. |
Citation | 987 So.2d 569 |
Parties | John RALEY v. James Allen MAIN, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. James Allen Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. v. John Raley. Joyce Sharpley, as the administratrix of the estate of James Sharpley, deceased v. James Allen Main, as finance director of the State of Alabama, et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Donald R. Rhea of Rhea, Boyd, Rhea & Coggin, Gadsden, for appellant/cross-appellee John Raley.
Jarrod D. Nichols of Taylor & Taylor, Birmingham, for appellant Joyce Sharpley, as administrator of the estate of James Sharpley, deceased.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Kevin Newsom, deputy atty. gen., and Margaret L. Fleming, asst. atty. gen., and Steven Herndon, deputy atty. gen., of Gidiere, Hinton, Herndon & Christman, Montgomery, for appellees/cross-appellants James Allen Main, as finance directory of the State of Alabama and Troy King, attorney general of the State of Alabama.
On February 7, 2005, John Raley sued James Allen Main, in his capacity as finance director of the State of Alabama; Troy King, in his capacity as the attorney general of the State of Alabama; the State of Alabama General Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund"); and the State of Alabama (these defendants are collectively hereinafter referred to as "the State defendants"). He also named as a defendant Joyce Sharpley, in her capacity as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, James Sharpley. Raley sought a judgment declaring whether the State defendants were obligated to provide him a defense and indemnification in an action brought by Sharpley against him in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division. The State defendants answered the complaint asserting certain affirmative defenses and generally denying that they were obligated to defend or indemnify Raley in the federal litigation.
On May 18, 2005, Raley moved the trial court for a summary judgment contending that he was entitled to a defense from the Fund as to the claims asserted by Sharpley in the federal litigation and to indemnification from the Fund should any damages be awarded Sharpley. On August 15, 2005, Sharpley responded in support of Raley's motion, contending that Raley was entitled to a defense and to indemnification from the Fund. On August 18, 2005, the State defendants responded to Raley's motion for a summary judgment and filed their own motion for a summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, that the controversy at issue is reserved to the legislative and executive branches of government, and that the State defendants were immune from suit pursuant to Art. I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901.
On August 22, 2005, Sharpley responded to the State defendants' motion for a summary judgment. On August 24, 2005, Raley responded to the State defendants' motion for a summary judgment and presented the affidavit of his attorney, Donald R. Rhea, in support of his response.
Following a hearing, the trial court, on September 13, 2005, entered an order granting Raley's motion for a summary judgment in part, finding that Raley was entitled to a defense from the Fund in the federal litigation; however, the trial court denied Raley's motion to the extent that it sought indemnification and granted the State's motion in that respect, finding that Raley was not entitled to indemnification from the Fund should a judgment be entered against him in the federal litigation.
On September 30, 2005, Raley and Sharpley moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment of September 13, 2005, as to the issue of indemnification. On October 4, 2005, the State defendants moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment of September 13, 2005, as to the issue of a duty to defend. The parties' postjudgment motions were denied by operation of law; all parties appeal.
The facts giving rise to the federal court litigation were set forth by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in an unpublished memorandum affirming Raley's manslaughter conviction, Raley v. State (CR-02-0983, August 22, 2003), 886 So.2d 183 (Ala.Crim.App.2003)(table):
Subsequently, Raley was indicted for "heat-of-passion" manslaughter, see § 13A-6-3(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975.
On January 30, 2002, Sharpley sued Raley, among others, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, asserting a state law cause of action for wrongful death pursuant to § 6-5-410, Ala.Code 1975, and federal causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The risk-management division of the Alabama Department of Finance was notified of the federal civil action pending against Raley. Jerry Carpenter, the risk manager for the Department of Finance ("the Department"), notified Raley by letter on March 11, 2002, that the Fund would provide him with a defense and indemnification in the federal court litigation subject to certain reservation of rights by the Fund and the Department. The letter stated, in relevant part:
On April 2, 2002, Donald R. Rhea was appointed a deputy attorney general by the attorney general for the specific purpose of representing Raley in the federal court litigation. On October 18, 2002, Raley was convicted of manslaughter in the Limestone Circuit Court and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The sentence was suspended, and Raley was placed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alabama Dept. of Transp. v. Harbert Intern.
...immunity that it is now well established extends both to the State and to State agencies." Main v. Raley, 987 So.2d 569, 583 (Ala. 2007) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result) (footnote The purpose of the so-called "exception" to § 14 allowing declaratory-judgment ac......
-
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Human Resources
...that "`absolute immunity ... extends to the State and to State agencies'" (quoting Raley v. Main, 987 So.2d 569, 583 (Ala.2007) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result))); Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Ala.2006) (citing Lyons v. River Road Constr.......
-
Paragon Ltd., Inc. v. Boles
... ... --------------- ... MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially) ... I concur in the main opinion. In so doing, I take particular note of the holding of the Montana Supreme Court in Stewart v. Covill & Basham Construction, LLC, 317 Mont ... ...
-
Brackin v. Anson
...the State." Phillips v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 (Ala. 1989). There are limited exceptions to absolute immunity, see Raley v. Main, 987 So. 2d 569, 576 (Ala. 2007), but according to Defendants, no exception applies in thiscase, and thus, they are entitled to absolute immunity on Plaintiffs......