Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
1171151
____________________
v.
BOLIN, Justice.
228, Ala. Acts 2013, a local act known as the "Center Point
2
1171151
violation as
3
1171151
1.1 of the ordinance states that the Center Point City Council
1
The language of the ordinance closely tracks the language
of the Act.
4
1171151
the City.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the ordinance impose a $60 civil fine
5
1171151
DeBose alleges that she was ticketed through the use of the
2
Redflex is the entity retained by the City responsible
for installing, maintaining, and monitoring the automated
photographic equipment.
6
1171151
holding, among other things, that neither the Act nor the
3
The defendants dispute Moore's and Farmer's assertion
that they were cited for running a red light because, they
say, the City did not have any automated cameras monitoring
red lights within the corporate limits of the City. The
defendants stated that, for purposes of their motion to
dismiss, they would assume that Moore and Farmer had been
cited for running a stop sign. The defendants further
acknowledged in their motion to dismiss that, for purposes of
addressing the legal issues presented in this case, it did not
matter whether the plaintiffs were cited for running a red
light, running a stop sign, or speeding. This Court agrees
that, for purposes of addressing the issues presented by this
appeal, it does not matter whether the plaintiffs were cited
for running a red light, running a stop sign, or speeding.
7
1171151
Standard of Review
dismiss as follows:
8
1171151
Discussion
9
1171151
10
1171151
11
1171151
"'Declaratory-judgment actions in
Alabama are governed by the Declaratory
Judgment Act, codified at §§ 6–6–220
through –232, Ala. Code 1975 ("the Act").
The Act does not "'empower courts to decide
moot questions, abstract propositions, or
to give advisory opinions, however
convenient it might be to have these
questions decided for the government of
future cases.'" Stamps v. Jefferson County
Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala.
1994) (quoting Town of Warrior v. Blaylock,
275 Ala. 113, 114, 152 So. 2d 661, 662
(1963))(emphasis added in Stamps). Pursuant
to § 6–6–226, declaratory relief may be
afforded in cases "in which a judgment will
terminate the controversy or remove the
uncertainty," but § 6–6–229 emphasizes the
12
1171151
13
1171151
14
1171151
writing, within 15 days of the 10th day after the date the
15
1171151
under the Act and the ordinance sometime in 2017. It does not
appear from the record, and the parties have not asserted,
challenged the Act and the ordinance within the time and
16
1171151
plaintiffs in this case did not accept liability under the Act
and the ordinance by paying the fines and thus settling the
the Act and the ordinance. See § 6(c) of the Act and § 6.3 of
17
1171151
AFFIRMED.
18