McMillan v. Lee

3 Citing cases

  1. Ex parte Ret. Sys. of Ala.

    182 So. 3d 527 (Ala. 2015)   Cited 9 times
    Dismissing all claims except for the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the defendants

    In Druid City Hospital Board v. Epperson, 378 So.2d 696 (Ala.1979), this Court addressed the rights of a creditor to garnish the wages of a state employee. Gunter v. Beasley, 414 So.2d 41 (Ala.1982), McMillan v. Lee, 655 So.2d 906 (Ala.1994), and Ex parte Bessemer Board of Education, 68 So.3d 782 (Ala.2011), were actions to compel State officials to perform a ministerial duty, i.e., to pay specific amounts owed by the State under a statute. None of those cases supports a finding that the aspect of this action requesting monetary relief seeks to compel the performance of a ministerial act or otherwise survives the § 14 bar.

  2. McCord-Baugh v. Birmingham City Board of Education

    894 So. 2d 672 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    Section 6-2-33(3) applies a 10-year statute of limitations to actions against certain public officials "for nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office." In McMillan v. Lee, 655 So.2d 906 (Ala. 1994), a former lieutenant governor filed an action seeking an order directed to the secretary of the senate, the state comptroller, and the director of the state finance department ordering payment of the monthly expense allowance of $1,500 to which he was entitled as a matter of state law. The action was one to compel public officers to perform "legal duties."

  3. Vaughan v. Sibley

    709 So. 2d 482 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)   Cited 22 times
    Discussing Gunter

    Colagross, 674 So.2d at 1314. Dr. Vaughan cites Baggiano v. Miller, 437 So.2d 557 (Ala.Civ.App. 1983), Gunter v. Beasley, 414 So.2d 41 (Ala. 1982), and McMillan v. Lee, 655 So.2d 906 (Ala. 1994), for the proposition that an action seeking retroactive relief is not prohibited by Ala. Const. Art. I, § 14. Those decisions, however, do not support his argument. In Baggiano, this court held that a Medicaid applicant's action against a state agency to compel the agency to pay her benefits was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.