Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): spite of § 14. Again, in that decision this Court held that an award of attorney fees was inappropriate. Therefore, we were not required to address the issue whether § 14 barred such an award, and our opinion is not precedent on that issue. Additionally, the fact that an action seeks a declaratory judgment and thus purportedly falls within an exception to § 14 does not necessarily open the doors of the State treasury to legal attack. The exception afforded declaratory-judgment actions under § 14 generally applies only when the action seeks “construction of a statute and how it should be applied in a given situation,” Aland v. Graham, 287 Ala. 226, 280, 250 So.2d 677, 679 (1971), and not when an action seeks other relief. Curry v. Woodstock Slag Corp., 242 Ala. 379, 6 So.2d 479 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Section 14 bars an action characterized as a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  14 prevents an action against the state when a result favorable to the plaintiff would directly affect a contract or property right of the state (B) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (C) holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant (D) holding that a declaratoryjudgment action that seeks only a declaration to construe the law and direct the parties and no other relief does not violate  14 (E) holding that a declaratoryjudgment action against the state that would affect property in which the state had an interest was barred by  14
Output (English): holding that doctrine does not violate due process