Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): nature of a tort claim. Alabama law has long embraced the common-law doctrine of local-governmental immunity applicable to tort actions against municipalities and counties. Indeed, this Court has explained that the doctrine predates, but survived, the adoption of the 1901 Constitution. Gamer v. Covington Cnty., 624 So.2d 1346 (Ala. 1993); Home Indem. Co. v. Anders, 459 So.2d 836 (Ala.1984). It is a doctrine designed to protect local governments and their coffers. See, e.g., Smith v. Schulte, 671 So.2d 1334, 1343-44 (Ala.l995)(abro-gated on other grounds, Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala.2001)); Gamer, 624 So.2d at 1351. Because it was in fact a common-law doctrine and not created by the constitution, it was and is subject to modification by the legislature. Smith v. Schulte, supra (<HOLDING>); Gamer, 624 So.2d at 1351. Our legislature has 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar (B) holding that eleventh amendment immunity does not extend to independent political subdivisions created by the state such as counties and cities (C) recognizing legislature reallocated the regulatory authority from the cities over the property on which dfw airport is located to the airport board (D) recognizing the immunity of counties unless an action is authorized by the legislature (E) recognizing the unique status of counties and cities that enables the legislature to regulate their tort liability
Output (English): recognizing the immunity of counties unless an action is authorized by the legislature