context: The Daphne plaintiffs argue that the 1999 Act violates SS 95, Ala. Const.1901, because, they say, the Legislature changed a rule of decision "midstream" in order to affect the outcome of Dispute I. Section 95 provides that "[a]fter suit has been commenced on any cause of action, the legislature shall have no power to take away such cause of action, or destroy any existing defense to such suit." See United Cos.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: the Legislature cannot change the law to lessen a plaintiffs recovery once the plaintiff files an action
citation_a.sentence: Lending Corp. v. Autrey, 723 So.2d 617 (Ala.1998) (the Legislature cannot change the law to lessen a plaintiffs recovery once the plaintiff files an action); see also Kemp v. Britt, 410 So.2d 31 (Ala.1982) (the Legislature may not change the law to lessen a state employee’s benefits after the employee has sued to collect those benefits).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: the Legislature may not change the law to lessen a state employee's benefits after the employee has sued to collect those benefits
citation_b.sentence: Lending Corp. v. Autrey, 723 So.2d 617 (Ala.1998) (the Legislature cannot change the law to lessen a plaintiffs recovery once the plaintiff files an action); see also Kemp v. Britt, 410 So.2d 31 (Ala.1982) (the Legislature may not change the law to lessen a state employee’s benefits after the employee has sued to collect those benefits).