interpretation of the law.’” Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d at 178 (quoting Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405). We do not read this provision from Ex parte Cranman and Ex parte Butts, nor do we read any of the progeny of those cases, as holding that an innocent misrepresentation by a state agent falls outside the protection that for so long has been provided by our law to state officials and employees while acting within reason and in good faith in the discharge of their responsibilities to the public. If something more were not required in order for conduct to fall within the exception relied upon by Lewis, that exception would “swallow” the whole of the general rule of immunity itself. Any misrepresentation is beyond the authority of a state agent. Indeed, any misstep by 6-07 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>); Bayles v. Marriott, 816 So.2d 38
holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution holding the same for malicious prosecution holding that a necessary element for malicious prosecution under virginia law is lack of probable cause recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim holding that a state agent was entitled to immunity notwithstanding the fact that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict for malicious prosecution because malice for purposes of malicious prosecution can be based upon a lack of probable cause but such malice in law is not enough to satisfy the ex parte cranman exception for acts committed willfully maliciously fraudulently in bad faith beyond his or her authority or under a mistaken interpretation of the law