422 So.3d 68
Ala.2025Background
- Russell County stopped distributing 10% of its share of state gasoline excise tax proceeds to the City of Phenix City and the Town of Hurtsboro in 2017, ending a long-standing practice mandated by a 1969 local law (Act No. 859).
- The County justified its action by arguing that the Alabama Terminal Excise Tax Act (ATETA), effective 2012, repealed the statutes and local law requiring these payments.
- Phenix City sued seeking a writ of mandamus, a declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction compelling the County to resume payments in accordance with the local law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the municipalities, holding that the ATETA did not repeal the local law.
- The County appealed, arguing that the local law was either specifically repealed or rendered inoperative by the ATETA.
- All material facts were stipulated; the case turned entirely on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the local law was repealed by ATETA | ATETA preserves local laws under §40-17-359(f), so local law still governs distribution. | Local law is defunct because it referenced repealed Act No. 224; ATETA repealed prior scheme. | ATETA expressly preserves in-force local laws, so local law remains. |
| Whether the reference in the local law to Act No. 224 made it a specific-reference statute that is now void | Reference to "state gasoline excise tax" is general; law remains valid despite repeal of Act No. 224. | Local law's specific reference to Act No. 224 means it no longer applies after repeal. | Local law is a general-reference statute and valid as to new tax. |
| Whether the ATETA was a mere continuation of Act No. 224 | ATETA retained substantially the same distribution scheme as Act No. 224. | Express repeal means ATETA is a new scheme, not a continuation. | ATETA is a continuation since it re-enacted substantially the same provisions. |
| Whether the ATETA repealed the local law by implication | Presumption against repeal by implication, especially for local/special acts; no clear conflict. | ATETA is comprehensive and uniform, implying repeal of local variations. | No implied repeal; ATETA explicitly allows local variation in distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelby Cnty. Comm'n v. Smith, 372 So. 2d 1092 (Ala. 1979) (distinguishing between specific and general reference statutes for incorporation of laws)
- McKinney v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 33 So. 3d 1203 (Ala. 2009) (de novo standard for reviewing statutory interpretation)
- Day v. Morgan County Commission, 487 So. 2d 856 (Ala. 1986) (strong presumption against implied repeal, especially for special/local acts)
- Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Tuscaloosa County, 994 So. 2d 250 (Ala. 2008) (comprehensive revision may cause implied repeal, but only with clear legislative intent)
- Jefferson County v. Braswell, 407 So. 2d 115 (Ala. 1981) (local laws appropriating tax proceeds do not violate Alabama Constitution § 105)