Russell County, Alabama, the Russell County Commissioners and Russell County Administrator, in their official capacities, and the Russell County Commission v. City of Phenix City, Alabama, and Town of Hurtsboro, Alabama (Appeal from Russell Circuit Court: CV-18-900263).
SC-2024-0045
Ala.Jan 10, 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- The County justified its action by arguing that the Alabama Terminal Excise Tax Act (ATETA), effective 2012, repealed the statutes and local law requiring these payments.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- The County appealed, arguing that the local law was either specifically repealed or rendered inoperative by the ATETA.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| Whether the local law was repealed by ATETA | ATETA preserves local laws under §40-17-359(f), so local law still governs distribution. | Local law is defunct because it referenced repealed Act No. 224; ATETA repealed prior scheme.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| Whether the ATETA repealed the local law by implication | Presumption against repeal by implication, especially for local/special acts; no clear conflict.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)