immunity as well, except in circumstances where they are acting either “illegally, fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond [their] authority, or under a mistaken interpretation of law, or where the lawsuit seeks to compel the performance of a legal duty or a ministerial act or to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, or where the action is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act.” Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Forensic Sciences, 709 So.2d 455, 457 (Ala.1997). We first must determine whether the Town and Denham were acting as agents of the State when Coleman fell. If so, they are entitled to the protection of the State’s immunity from suit pursuant to § 14, Ala. Const, of 1901, unless one of the exceptions applies. See Alexsis, Inc. v. Terry, 675 So.2d 1321 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). See, also, Bowden v. Southern Risk Servs.,
holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department holding that the company administering a selfinsurance program for the department of transportation was an agent for the department and was therefore immune from suit holding that where department of transportation regulations did not require department officials to enforce vehicle regulations the departments decision not to do so was discretionary holding that the department of transportation was liable under the mtca but that it was not responsible for any of the cleanup costs holding that a state department of transportation employee was subject to patronage dismissal where his duties included serving as a liaison between the director of the department and the general public and other government officials including representing the department at meetings and conferences