 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Walter Industries6/6/2003
"279 Ala. at 513, 187 So. 2d at 267. These general principles control in the case before us. Applying these principles, we opine that the alleged wrong for which the petitioners seek redress occurred in the Birmingham Division, and, thus, the cause of action arose there."
Ex parte Fields, 432 So. 2d at 1292-93. See also Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Bryant, 421 So. 2d 1254, 1256 (Ala. 1982)(noting, in a case involving the Act, that "a case arises wherever the alleged wrong occurs"); Ex parte Central of Georgia Ry., 243 Ala. at 511, 10 So. 2d at 748 (holding that a wrongful-death action arose at the time and place of the injury causing the death).
All of the cases this Court uncovered that address the issue of the propriety of maintaining an action in the Bessemer Division deal with factual situations in which the cause of action arose in either the Bessemer Division or the Birmingham Division -- i.e., in Jefferson County. In this case, the "alleged wrong for which the petitioners seek redress" occurred not in the Bessemer Division, but in Tuscaloosa County. No case, as far as this Court can determine, has addressed the issue presented in this case -- whether venue in the Bessemer Division is proper in a case where the cause of action arose outside Jefferson County.
It is clear that, in creating the Bessemer Division, the Legislature specifically limited the powers of that division. This Court's first decision on the issue, Trieste & Co., recognized this limitation and held that the Jefferson Circuit Court, sitting in the Bessemer Division, could hear only cases "arising" in the territorial boundaries of the division. While at times this limitation has been described as jurisdictional, this Court has recognized since Glenn v. Wilson, supra, that the limitation in the Act is one of venue. In sum, the voluminous caselaw on this issue clearly holds that venue for an action filed in Jefferson County is proper in the Bessemer Division only if the cause of action "arose" in that division.
In determining whether venue in this case is proper in the Bessemer Division, we are guided by this Court's opinion in Ex parte Alabama Mobile Homes, Inc., 468 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1985). In Alabama Mobile Homes, this Court employed a two-step analysis to determine whether an action should be brought in the Bessemer Division. First, we must determine whether Jefferson County is the proper venue for the action. Id. at 161. If the case was properly brought in Jefferson County, then
"we must determine which of the two divisions the case should have been filed in. An action must be brought in Bessemer if it 'arises' within the territorial boundaries of the Bessemer Cutoff. Local Act No. 213, ยง 2, p. 62, Ala. Acts 1919. All suits maintainable in Jefferson County which do not arise in Bessemer should be brought in the Birmingham Division."
468 So. 2d at 161-62 (emphasis added).
The parties in these cases dispute, without much discussion, whether venue is proper in Jefferson County. However, assuming, without deciding, that venue in Jefferson County is proper, we hold that venue in the Bessemer Division is not proper because the plaintiffs' claims did not "arise" within the territorial boundaries of that division. Id. at 162. See also United Supply Co., 396 So. 2d at 1050 (the Bessemer Division may exercise its power "only for actions arising in its territorial boundary"); Central of Georgia Ry., 243 Ala. at 512, 10 So. 2d at 749 ("civil suits at law can properly be brought at Bessemer only in cases arising in the Bessemer District"). Therefore, even if venue in these cases is proper in Jefferson County, venue is improper in the Bessemer Division. The acti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|