the RSA is a “public corporation with a fiduciary duty to hold and invest its assets in trust for its members. ” Id. at 681 (emphasis in original). Knutson concluded that the assets of the RSA are not state funds because the funds come not just from the state, but from many sources, and “because the constitution provides that these funds are to be held, invested, and disbursed solely for the benefit of the members of the RSA.” Id. Although the Alabama Plaintiffs seek to distinguish Knutson on the ground that it was resolving an issue of taxpayer standing, the analysis in Knutson was not limited by that specific context. As Knutson itself explained, it had to decide whether the “funds of the RSA are ‘state funds.’ ” Id. at 678. See also McBurney v. Ruth, 527 So.2d 1265, 1268 (Ala.1988) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Alabama Mun. Elec. Auth., 432 So.2d
holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver holding that the state police is a state agency holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that a public corporation in that case a commission created to provide information about the tva is an entity separate from the state and its acts are not acts of the state  within the meaning of the state constitutions prohibition against the state creating new debts holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state