 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Hanna Steel Corp.11/12/2004
he Bessemer Division pursuant to the Bessemer Act is proper in a case where the cause of action arose outside Jefferson County, the cause of action here arose within Jefferson County. The residents ask us to treat the subsequent enactment of § 6-3-7(d) as the basis for rejecting the construction placed on the Bessemer Act in Central of Georgia Railway, restricting venue in the Bessemer Division to causes of action arising within that division. In order to reach such a result, we would have to overrule our recent decision in Walter Industries, decided after the enactment of § 6-3-7(d) and citing with approval the construction of the Bessemer Act in Central of Georgia Railway. However, despite their extensive criticism of Walter Industries, the residents never ask us to overrule Walter Industries or Central of Georgia Railway.
Therefore, on the authority of Walter Industries and Central of Georgia Railway, we conclude that the trial court erred when it denied the businesses' motions to change venue to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons previously stated, we grant the petition for a writ of mandamus and order the trial court to transfer this action to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Nabers, C.J., and Woodall, J., concur.
Houston, J., concurs in the rationale in part and concurs in the result.
Lyons and Johnstone, JJ., concur in the result.
HOUSTON, Justice (concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result).
Act No. 99-249, Acts of Alabama 1999, which enacted § 6-3-7(d), provides as follows in Section 2:
"All laws and parts of laws in this chapter [Chapter 3 of Title 6] that are in conflict with any of the provisions of this act shall be and are, to the extent of the conflict, repealed, and Section 6-3-5, Code of Alabama 1975, is specifically repealed ...."
(Emphasis added.) The Bessemer Act (Act No. 213, Acts of Alabama 1919, as amended) does not appear in Chapter 3 of Title 6. Section 2 of Act No. 99-249, contained the following proviso after the above-quoted language:
"provided however, that nothing herein shall change, amend or otherwise affect more specific provisions in other chapters which provide for where actions may be filed, and without limitation, this act shall not repeal, alter or otherwise affect the provisions of Section 6-5-546 or Section 6-3-11, Code of Alabama 1975."
Acts of Alabama 1999, Vol. 1, p. 328 (emphasis added).
In my opinion, Act No. 99-249 did not revoke Act No. 213, as amended. It merely addressed the holding in Ex parte Chrysler Corp., 659 So. 2d 113 (Ala. 1995), where I, writing for a unanimous division of the Supreme Court, wrote:
"Insofar as civil actions are concerned, Barbour County is a single entity, and a cause of action arising in any geographical part of Barbour County can be filed in either courthouse in Barbour County, without violating the general venue laws of the state."
659 So. 2d at 117.
Barbour County has had two courthouses -- one in the county seat of Clayton and the other in Eufaula -- since the enactment of Act No. 106, Acts of Alabama 1878-79 (amended by Act No. 888, Acts of Alabama 1969).
In Ex parte Chrysler Corp., the defendants in a wrongful- death action argued that the Eufaula and Clayton divisions of Barbour County should be treated as two separate judicial districts for venue purposes , citing Glenn v. Wilson, 455 So. 2d 2, 4-5 (Ala. 1984), which applied to Jefferson County, and Ex parte
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|