permitting such an award was permissible: “Laying to one side concerns over the applicability of Brown to this proceeding where no federally created right to an attorney fee is presented, we must determine whether the City bestowed a common benefit.” 855 So.2d at 1084 (footnote omitted). However, we were not required to address that issue in ABC Board v. Pelham, because we held that the plaintiffs were not otherwise entitled to attorney fees. While we acknowledged in ABC Board v. Pelham that, in the past, attorney fees have been awarded against the State, we went on to note concern as to whether such an award was permissible, and we resolved the case on other grounds. That decision thus does not support the proposition that this Court has approved of an attorney-fee award in th 1977) (<HOLDING>). Although the petitioners’ underlying
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 an action against an officer was not an action against the state because the relief sought would not take away any property of the state or fasten a lien on it or interfere with the disposition of funds in the treasury recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks an interest which the state can protect even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines holding that  14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant 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