Ex parte DaimlerChrysler Corp.9/17/2004
e plaintiffs' contention. See Rule 28(b)(10), Ala. R. App. P. We therefore decline to revisit Walter Industries.
The trial court erred when it denied the motions to transfer venue to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court in cases no. 1030573, 1030574, 1030575, 1030576, 1030577, and 1030579.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons previously stated, we deny that aspect of the petitions in cases no. 1030573, 1030574, and 1030575 seeking the dismissal of the Kelley, Griffin, and Hannan/Allen actions so as to permit refiling in Turner County, Georgia, but we grant that aspect of those petitions seeking transfer of those actions to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. We grant the petitions in cases no. 1030576, 1030577, and 1030579 seeking transfer of the Kelley, Griffin, and Hannan/Allen actions to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. We deny the petition in case no. 1030589 seeking dismissal of the Spates action so as to permit refiling in Turner County, Georgia.
1030573--PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
1030574--PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
1030575--PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
Nabers, C.J., and Houston, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
See, J., concurs in the rationale in part and concurs in the judgments.
1030576--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1030577--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1030579--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Nabers, C.J., and Houston, See, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
1030589--PETITION DENIED.
Nabers, C.J., and Houston, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
See, J., concurs in the judgment.
SEE, Justice (concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the judgments).
I concur fully in Part IV of the main opinion, which grants DCC's and Dollar's petitions for the writ of mandamus in the cases no. 1030573, 1030574, 1030575, 1030576, 1030577, and 1030579 insofar as they seek the transfer of those cases to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
I concur in the result reached in Part III of the main opinion denying the petitions for the writ of mandamus in cases no. 1030573, 1030574, 1030575, and 1030589 insofar as they seek dismissal of those cases to permit their refiling in Georgia based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-430. I agree with the main opinion that the petitions for the writ of mandamus should be denied as to this issue; however, I believe that the petitions should be denied because DCC has not met its burden of showing that the claims against it arose outside of Alabama, as is required by § 6-5-430, Ala. Code 1975. See my dissent in Ex parte Kia Motors America, Inc., [Ms. 1011037, May 9, 2003] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2003) (See, J., dissenting).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|