Rich v. Mobile County
Annotate this CaseIn case no. 1130359, Mobile County, the Mobile County Commission ("the Commission"), and the individual members of the Commission (collectively, "the County"), appealed a circuit court's judgment ordering the County to provide certain funding to the District Attorney's Office for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. In case no. 1130404, Ashley Rich, who was the district attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, cross-appealed. Rich alleged that, under Act No. 82-675, Ala. Acts 1982 ("the 82 Act"), as amended by Act No. 88-423, Ala. Acts 1988 ("the 88 Act"), the County was obligated to provide certain funding to the District Attorney's Office for the 2011-2012 fiscal year and it had failed to do so. Rich contended that the 82 Act required the County to provide funds sufficient to compensate eight "legal stenographers" and to purchase certain equipment and supplies for the investigative unit of the District Attorney's Office. Although the County had appropriated money for the District Attorney's Office for the 2011- 2012 fiscal year, Rich contended that significantly more funds were due to be appropriated under the Acts. The complaint was later amended to add similar claims for later fiscal years. The County contended, among other things, that it had complied with the funding requirements of the Acts. All the judges of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit recused themselves from the action. A Judge from the Monroe District Court was appointed to preside over the action. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the trial court's judgment holding that the 82 Act did not require the County to provide funding for the salaries of certain individuals working in the investigation unit of the District Attorney's Office. The portion of the judgment holding that raises subsequently effected by the County and the State did not impact the salary-funding amounts found in the local acts was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.