Court Opinion

ID: 9468832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:24:57.747013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:04.752089
License: Public Domain

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment reversing this case.
The majority opinion observes:
“For whatever reason, Alabama did not elect to operate Eastside as a state institution with state employees; instead it set up a not for profit corporation with a separate, independent board of directors to administer it. Whatever may have been the state’s reason for doing it this way, it must live with the consequences. It cannot claim an immunity based on a condition which it itself sought to avoid.”
Additional language expands upon and explains this reason for our judgment, and I join in the opinion to that extent.
Insofar as the opinion reaches conclusions based upon the hypothetical (“In short we believe that even if the State of Alabama had chosen to operate Eastside as a state agency, .... ”), I am not willing to join. Were it necessary to express a conclusion, I am presently inclined to the view that such an operation would be exempt.