# Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

> Supreme Court of Alabama · February 7, 2014 · 148 So. 3d 1060

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814349

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and U.S. Bancorp. (In re Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bancorp)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** February 7, 2014
- **Citations:** 148 So. 3d 1060; 2014 Ala. LEXIS 15; 2014 WL 502370
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shaw
- **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814349

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "[t]his Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 1998); … personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int'l Co., 985 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2007);…
- holding that a petition for the writ of mandamus is an appropriate mechanism for reviewing issues regarding the grant of a supersedeas bond

## Opinion text

SHAW, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the main opinion. I write specially to note the following.
It is undisputed that this Court has the authority, based on the Alabama Constitution and statute, to issue any writs necessary to give general superintendence and control of lower courts. Ala. Const.1901, Art. VI, § 140; Ala.Code 1975, § 12-2-7(3). As noted in the main opinion, there are numerous situations in which this Court exercises authority by mandamus to review interlocutory decisions that, if properly set aside, would terminate an action so as to avoid the waste and expense of further litigation.
The appellate courts of this State have, in the past, issued writs of mandamus to correct trial courts’ decisions on issues relating to the conflict of laws. Ex parte Exxon Corp., 725 So.2d 930 (Ala.1998), and Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Dodd, 755 So.2d 581 (Ala.Civ.App.1999). Thus, the issuance of the writ in the instant case to direct the trial court on this conflict-of-laws issue treads no new ground.
Here, the correct application of conflict-of-laws principles requires the utilization of the law of the State of Washington. That law undisputedly results in the termination of this litigation. See respondent’s answer, at 29-30 (noting that Washington law “would bar a remedy” in this case). Given that our determination terminates the litigation in this action, that this Court has the power to issue writs of mandamus to supervise the trial courts, and that decisions on conflict-of-laws issues have been previously decided on mandamus review, I concur to issue the writ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4814349. Public record. Not legal advice.