DR. CHARLES H. EDMONDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. DAVID BRONNER, ETC.; ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Elected or appointed county superintendents of education in Alabama are not officers within the meaning of Article IV, Section 98 of the Alabama Constitution.
The district court held that an elected county superintendent of education was an officer barred from participating in the Teachers' Retirement System…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certified Question Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The facts of this case are recited in the panel decision of January 30, 1989 certifying a question of law to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Edmonds v. Bronner, 864 F. 2d 752 (11th Cir.1989).
In the certified questions we asked whether superintendents of public schools or public colleges within the State of Alabama, either elected or appointed, are officers within the meaning of article IV, section 98 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
The Supreme Court answered that county superintendents of education, either elected or appointed, are not officers within the meaning of that provision. Edmonds v. Bronner, 547 So. 2d 1172 (Ala.1989).
The district court had held that plaintiff-appellant, who is an elected county superintendent of education, is such an officer and therefore is barred by section 98 from participating in the Teachers’ Retirement Sys-tern of Alabama. Because the district court’s application of the Alabama Constitution is contrary to the holding of the Supreme Court of Alabama, its judgment must be reversed.
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126 (11th Cir. 1990)…in law resulting from either factual or legal inadequacies. Factual allegations are frivolous for purpose of § 1915(d) when they are “clearly baseless;” legal theories are frivolous when they are “indisputably meritless.” Id. See Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F. 2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir.1990). II. In this case, the district court determined that Battle’s treatment claims were legally frivolous because Battle’s allegations did not rise to the level of stating a claim for an eighth amendment violation under Estelle…
-
Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)…der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Sultenfuss was the only inmate to appeal the district court’s dismissal. On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal of the claim for compensatory damages, but reversed the dismissal of the due process claim. Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F. 2d 1277 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam). We held that the district court erred by relying on Slocum because that decision had dealt with the previous parole system and did not address the issue under the current system. “While upon close examination, these ch…
-
Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990)…eadily apparent that the plaintiffs complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit; within the latter are those cases describing scenarios clearly removed from reality.” Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F. 2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir.1990). A complaint that arguably states a claim should go forward. Neitzke identified two goals underlying the district court’s power to grant in forma pauperis status and dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d): (1) insuring that all lit…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edmonds v. Bronner, 864 F.2d 752 (11th Cir. 1989)