Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions,
A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e
t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
1060855
v.
S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . A r t h u r G r e e n , D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y f o r
t h e Bessemer D i v i s i o n o f t h e T e n t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t o f
Alabama
PER CURIAM.
g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a on t h e r e l a t i o n of Arthur Green,
a p p r o v e t h e g a m i n g m a c h i n e s f o r u s e as amusement m a c h i n e s and
be allowed t o be operated."
2
1060855
the appeal.
3
1060855
26, 2007, the trial court granted the State's motion and
this Court.
Discussion
in the enforcement of c r i m i n a l l a w s t h r o u g h t h e i s s u a n c e o f an
4
1060855
5
1060855
and, like the trial court i n Tyson, the trial court in this
6
1060855
all orders entered by the trial court in this case are void.
Conclusion
ORDER V A C A T E D ; A C T I O N D I S M I S S E D ; A P P E A L DISMISSED.
concur.
7
1060855
observations:
8
1060855
9
1060855
Constitution.
t h e s e r e s p e c t i v e t a s k s t o t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r b r a n c h e s and to the
10
1060855
1
See g e n e r a l l y C i t y C o u n c i l o f Montgomery v. West, 4 0 So.
215, 215 ( A l a . 1906) (not r e p o r t e d i n Alabama Reports)
(holding that a court exercising civil jurisdiction i s
" w i t h o u t power t o e n j o i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h r e a t e n e d c r i m e s ,
or t o r e s t r a i n t h r e a t e n e d p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r t h e commission of
a l l e g e d c r i m e s , " e v e n when " t h e o r d i n a n c e o r s t a t u t e f o r t h e
a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of which the prosecution i s threatened, i s
a b s o l u t e l y v o i d " a n d a v e r m e n t i s made t h a t t h e r e " w o u l d b e
11
1060855
Ala. 308, 318 , 61 So. 920 , 923 (1 913) (noting the "plain
12
1060855
statutes, i n t h e same m a n n e r a s do c a s e s s e e k i n g t o a d j u d i c a t e
the v i a b i l i t y o f a c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e e n a c t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
State.
2
C o m p a r e , e . g . , B e s s e m e r v . B e s s e m e r W a t e r W o r k s , 152 A l a .
3 9 1 , 44 S o . 663 ( 1 9 0 7 ) ( i n v o l v i n g l o c a l o r d i n a n c e s i m p o s i n g
restrictions on b u s i n e s s e s a n d p r o p e r t y t h a t i n a l l o t h e r
r e s p e c t s were " p e r f e c t l y l e g i t i m a t e and h i g h l y u s e f u l " ) ; Brown
v . B i r m i n g h a m , 140 A l a . 5 9 0 , 37 S o . 173 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ; O l d D o m i n i o n
T e l . C o . v . P o w e r s , 140 A l a . 2 2 0 , 37 S o . 195 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ; B r y a n v .
13
1060855
C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 154 A l a . 4 4 7 , 4 5 0 , 45 S o . 9 2 2 , 923 ( 1 9 0 8 )
(addressing on i t s m e r i t s the t r i a l court's denial of
e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f i n a case where t h e " t h r e a t e n e d enforcement
of t h e ordinance would n o t o n l y g r e a t l y d i m i n i s h t h e v a l u e o f
the p r o p e r t y , but w i l l p r a c t i c a l l y destroy i t s value, by
forbidding the use t o which i t i s b e t t e r or e x c l u s i v e l y
adaptable," i n this case a cemetery); Town o f C u b a v .
M i s s i s s i p p i O i l C o . , 150 A l a . 2 5 9 , 43 S o . 7 0 6 ( 1 9 0 7 ) ; P o r t o f
Mobile v . L. & N.R.R., 84 A l a . 1 1 5 , 4 S o . 1 0 6 (1 88 8 ) ;
M o n t g o m e r y v . L. & N.R.R., 84 A l a . 1 2 7 , 4 S o . 626 ( 1 8 8 8 ) , w i t h
Ex p a r t e S t a t e e x r e l . M a r t i n , 200 A l a . 1 5 , 1 6 , 75 S o . 3 2 7 ,
328 ( 1 9 1 7 ) ("The p r o p e r t y r i g h t s o u g h t t o b e a s s e r t e d ... d o e s
n o t ... b r i n g [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c a u s e w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n ...
r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e c a s e s n o t e d i n B o a r d o f Com'rs o f M o b i l e v .
O r r , 181 A l a . 3 0 8 , 61 S o . 920 [ ( 1 9 1 3 ) ] . The f a c t , i f s o , t h a t
complainant has brought into the state o r has i n h i s
possession a beverage t h a t , though i n f a c t not p r o h i b i t e d ,
w i l l s u b j e c t or has s u b j e c t e d him t o a r r e s t and h i s beverage
to s e i z u r e , c a n n o t a v a i l t o i n v e s t t h e c o u r t o f e q u i t y w i t h
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e p r e m i s e s . The i s s u e , w h e t h e r t h e b e v e r a g e
i s w i t h i n t h e p r o h i b i t o r y l a w s , c a n be f u l l y d e t e r m i n e d by t h e
c o u r t i n which t h e p r o s e c u t i o n and t h e proceedings on s e i z u r e
a r e h e a r d . " ) ; C a u d l e v . C o t t o n , 234 A l a . 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 , 173 S o .
847, 848 (1937) (dissolving an i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t law
enforcement's seizure of gambling devices and n o t i n g that
" [ p ] e r h a p s t h e c a s e o f E x p a r t e S t a t e , 200 A l a . 1 5 , 75 S o . 327
[ ( 1 9 1 7 ) ] , f u r n i s h e s an i l l u s t r a t i o n more n e a r l y i n p o i n t t o
t h e i n s t a n t c a s e " t h a n o t h e r s ) ; K e n n e d y v . S h a m b l i n , 234 A l a .
2 3 0 , 2 3 1 , 174 S o . 7 7 3 , 774 ( 1 9 3 7 ) ( a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
d e n i a l o f e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f where " t h e o n l y p r o p e r t y rights
involved a r e such as t h e c o m p l a i n a n t has i n s a i d slot
m a c h i n e s , i n w h i c h he h a s i n v e s t e d h i s money a n d t h e p r o f i t s
which s a i d machines a r e t a k i n g " ) . See a l s o D i c k e y v . S i g n a l
P e a k E n t e r s . , 340 A r k . 2 7 6 , 280 , 9 S.W.3d 5 1 7 , 51 9 ( 2 0 0 0 )
(holding that a threatened prosecution did not f a l l within the
exception to the general preventing a chancery court from
restraining prosecutorial efforts because the threatened
prosecution "was a i m e d exclusively at i l l e g a l gambling
operations, not lawful business operations"); B i l l y / D o t , Inc.
v . F i e l d s , 322 A r k . 2 7 2 , 908 S.W.2d 3 3 5 ( 1 9 9 5 ) .
14
1060855
provide relief.
case before us. I agree with the main opinion that the
15