Case ID: so2d_796/html/1099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE, Judge. CRAWLEY, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TUSCALOOSA COUNTY COMMISSION; and E.E. “Billy” Tinsley, both in his individual capacity and as an agent of Tuscaloosa County v. Rufus L. COSBY.
    2980094.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    May 28, 1999.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1999.
    Michael D. Smith of Hubbard, Smith, Mcllwain, Brakefield & Browder, P.C., Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
    Richard H. Holston of Brooks & Hamby, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
   MONROE, Judge.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. RApp.P.; Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1997); Tuscaloosa County v. Teaster, 770 So.2d 598 (Ala.Civ.App.1999); and White v. Searcy, 634 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1994).

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

CRAWLEY, J., dissents.

CRAWLEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I conclude that the county and Tinsley are entitled to discretionary function immunity. See Tuscaloosa County v. Teaster, 770 So.2d 598 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (Crawley, J., dissenting); and Tuscaloosa County v. Henderson, 699 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1997).