state employee or other state agent that wrongs another can be said to be beyond his or her authority and/or committed under a mistaken interpretation of the law. Construing the exception at issue in the manner urged by Lewis would mean that missteps by a state agent, no matter how innocently or reasonably taken, would in every case pull the agent out from under the umbrella of state-agent immunity provided by Ex parte Cranman and Ex parte Butts and supported by the results reached in decades of decisions that preceded those cases. See Howard v. City of Atmore, 887 So.2d 201, 206 (Ala.2003) (Cranman is a “restatement of the law of immunity, not a statute ”). Our conclusion in this regard is supported by the fact that the word “fraudulently” appears in the exc 1277 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Tuscaloosa County, 796 So.2d 1100,
holding that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available in the absence of a statute providing immunity to a municipal corporation in a negligence action holding that stateagent immunity was not available to a county employee who sued the plaintiff and had him arrested for operating without a business license because the evidence showed that in so doing the defendant acted with malice willfullness or  so beyond his authority that sovereign immunity would not apply footnote omitted holding that a forum is not required to extend sovereign immunity to other states sued in its courts but should extend immunity under the principle of comity unless doing so would violate the forums public policies holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply holding that once a defendant established that stateagent immunity attached the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish that an exception to the immunity was applicable