 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Hanna Steel Corp.11/12/2004
ly from within the divisions. This is consistent with the overall purpose behind the entire 1999 revisions to the Ala. Code § 6- 3-7, and it is consistent with the inclusion of the newly created subsection 'd' with the new general venue statute. This Court believes that the only reasonable interpretation of Ala. Code § 6-3-7(d) is that it operates to apply the general venue statute for corporations (Ala. Code § 6-3-7) to the divisions of Jefferson, Barbour and Coffee counties as if those divisions were actually separate counties.
"This Court is aware that Ex parte Walter Indus., Inc. was decided after the enactment of Ala. Code § 6-3-7(d), and this Court is aware that the main opinion applied the Bessemer Act and not Ala. Code § 6-3-7(d) in its discussion of venue in this Court. This may be seen by some as a tacit rejection of this Court's interpretation of Ala. Code § 6-3-7(d); however, the clear expression of the Legislature dictates this Court's finding.
"Pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(2) venue is proper in the Bessemer Division as to all claims against United States Steel Corporation and/or Hanna Steel Corporation because those Corporations have their principal place of business in Alabama located in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County. Venue as to all other defendants is proper pursuant to Rule 82(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure."
In their mandamus petition, the businesses argue that the trial court improperly refused to transfer the action from the Bessemer Division to the Birmingham Division, and they ask this Court to direct the trial court to transfer the case to the Birmingham Division.
II. Standard of Review
In Ex parte Walter Industries, Inc., 879 So. 2d 547 (Ala. 2003), we addressed the standard of review of a ruling on a venue matter:
"'The question of proper venue for an action is determined at the commencement of the action.' Ex parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532, 534 (Ala. 2001). 'If venue is not proper at the commencement of an action, then, upon motion of the defendant, the action must be transferred to a court where venue would be proper.' Ex parte Overstreet, 748 So. 2d 194, 196 (Ala. 1999). 'A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate means for challenging a trial court's refusal to transfer an action and such a petition is due to be granted if the petitioner makes a clear showing of error on the part of the trial court.' Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 640 So. 2d 921, 922 (Ala. 1994). 'In considering a mandamus petition, we must look at only those facts before the trial court.' Ex parte American Res. Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995)."
879 So. 2d 548-49.
III. Analysis
In Walter Industries, this Court reviewed the venue status of actions in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. We there reiterated the rule expressed in Ex parte Central of Georgia Ry., 243 Ala. 508, 10 So. 2d 746 (1942), that the jurisdiction granted to the Bessemer Division is limited to those cases arising in that division. See also Ex parte DaimlerChrysler Corp., [Ms. 1030573, September 17, 2004] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2004); and Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., [Ms. 1021378, June 4, 2004] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2004).
The residents do not dispute that their claims did not arise in the Bessemer Division. Instead, they argue extensively that § 6-3-7(d), Ala. Code 1975, abrogated Act No. 213, Ala. Acts 1919, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Bessemer Act"), and that the Bessemer Act, as construed by this Court in Walter Industries, has no application to the issue of venue in this case. Although Walter Industries dealt with whether venue in t
Page 1 2 3 4 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|