face of § 14; indeed, our decision in that case did not address § 14 at all. The petitioners also cite State Board of Education v. Waldrop, 840 So.2d 893 (Ala.2002), for the proposition that attorney fees may be awarded against the State claratory-judgment action “when it is nothing more than an action for damages.” Lyons, 858 So.2d at 263. As the Court of Civil Appeals noted in Moody v. University of Alabama, 405 So.2d at 717: “[W]hile an action for declaratory judgment against the state or its agencies which seeks the interpretation of a statute is generally not prohibited, ... such an action is prohibited when, as here, a result favorable to the plaintiff would directly affect a contract or property right of the state.” See also Stark v. Troy State Univ., 514 So.2d 46, 50 (Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>); and Unzicker v. State, 346 So.2d 931, 933
holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action holding governmental immunity was not implicated in a declaratoryjudgment action seeking an interpretation of a competitive bidding statute as applied to the highway commissions policy of requiring all materials furnished under contracts be manufactured in the united states holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages holding that a declaratoryjudgment action seeking to compel officials to perform their legal duties was not barred by  14 however a portion of the action seeking compensatory damages could not be maintained