violation of the preliminary injunction. The trial court determined that the commissioner had violated its preliminary injunction. It held the commissioner in civil contempt and ordered him to pay monetary sanctions to the counties. “On appeal, the com ssing against the commissioner in his official capacity monetary sanctions for contempt violates § 14.’ “Haley, 885 So.2d at 788-89 (some emphasis original; some emphasis added; footnotes omitted). See also Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ. v. Jones, 895 So.2d [867] at 872-73 [(Ala.2004)] (denying a tenured professor’s claim for retrospective monetary relief against the State in conjunction with injunctive relief because the retrospective monetary relief was prohibited by § 14); State v. Pullman-Standard Car, 235 Ala. 493, 179 So. 541 (1938) (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. Inman, 239 Ala. 348, 359, 195
holding that  14 prevents an action against the state when a result favorable to the plaintiff would directly affect a contract or property right of the state holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that doc is entitled to sovereign immunity under  14 because a judgment against it would be paid from the treasury of the state holding that a declaratoryjudgment action against the state that would affect property in which the state had an interest was barred by  14 holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant