Ex Parte Cranman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing the protection of conduct \related to policy planning and involving the exercise of judgment\
• explaining the difference in legal consequences between an exercise of judgment in a personnel-related matter and \a decision by the driver of a pickup truck on how to drive through or around potholes while transporting prisoners\
• \a state agent shall not be immune from civil liability in his or her personal capacity . . . when the State agent acts . . . beyond his or her authority\
• Cranman was a plurality decision, but a majority of this Court later adopted the Cranman standard in Ex parte Butts , 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000)
• plurality opinion adopted by a majority of the Court in Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 173 (Ala. 2000), and Ex parte Rizk, 791 So. 2d 911 (Ala. 2000)
• tasks justifying State-agent immunity include “exercising . . . his judgment in the administration of a department” including “supervising personnel” or “exercising judgment in the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).