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); … a denial of a motion for a change of venue when venue has been challenged as improper, Ex parte Daniels, 941 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 2006) …."
How later courts described this case
- 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); … a denial of a motion for a change of venue when venue has been challenged as improper, Ex parte Daniels, 941 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 2006) …."
- issuing a writ of mandamus directing the dismissal of the plaintiff's case where it was "apparent on the face of the complaint that there is an obvious conflict-of-laws issue" and it "would waste the resources of the court and the parties, and an appeal after a final judgment would be an inadequate remedy, where an action would be barred if the law of another state applied" (emphasis added)
- holding that a petition for the writ of mandamus is an appropriate mechanism for reviewing issues regarding the grant of a supersedeas bond
- differentiating fraud claims, where the alleged injury is financial, from claims alleging malicious prosecution, where the alleged injury is an antecedent lawsuit with mere indirect financial costs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOORE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bancorp have demonstrated a clear legal right to mandamus relief. I do not see how a party could have a clear legal right to relief when the issue presented is one of first impression. Making the alleged legal right even less clear is the fact that federal courts in Alabama have held that where, as here, the alleged injury is financial, jurisdiction is proper where the injury is felt. Glass v. Southern Wrecker Sales, 990 F.Supp. 1344, 1348 (M.D.Ala.1998); APR, LLC v. American Aircraft Sales, Inc. (No. 3:12cvl019-MHT, Feb. 19, 2013) (M.D.Ala.2013) (not reported in F.Supp.2d); Renasant Bank v. Park Nat’l Corp. (No. 12-0689-WS-C, April 10, 2013) (S.D.Ala.2013) (not reported in F.Supp.2d). The injury here was certainly felt in Alabama. Although these federal court decisions do not cite Alabama law and are not binding on this Court, they are evidence indicating that the legal right to relief in this case is less than clear.