 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
First Financial Trust Co. v. Scott11/18/1996
der the language of the venue statute. They contend that the language "for any . . . cause stated in the affidavit" would allow a party to transfer venue in cases in which there is gross inconvenience. Amicus fail, however, to provide any precedential support for its interpretation of this statutory provision. Since we have already overruled Frost on other grounds, we need not decide whether this interpretation of the statute is proper.
{20} Additionally, it has been argued by First Financial and amicus curiae that there are many public policy reasons for not recognizing the intrastate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The advent of the information age, with cellular phones, fax machines, jet travel, video taped depositions, and interstate highways, has "significantly altered the meaning of 'non conveniens.'" . If it is true that the inconvenience of defending an action in another state has decreased due to technology, it must also be true that this inconvenience has virtually disappeared within the territory of an individual state.
The improvement of the highway system, the expansion of scheduled air service, and the spread of new technologies have all but eliminated the obstacles that once hindered the ability of parties to litigate their cases in different parts of the State. Long-distance communication has become routine. Travel is safe, easy, fast and affordable.
Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 645 N.E.2d 184, 194, 206 Ill. Dec. 179 (Ill. 1994) (Harrison, J., Dissenting). However, since we have determined that the judiciary lacks the authority to adopt intrastate forum non conveniens, we need not evaluate these policy arguments.
{21} Conclusion. Finding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is inapplicable to motions to transfer a lawsuit intrastate from one county to another, we issued our writ of superintending control vacating the order of the district court.
{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RICHARD E. RANSOM, Justice
WE CONCUR:
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
DAN A. McKINNON, III, Justice
|