stating, on petition for a writ of mandamus, that, "[b]ecause the petitioners' answer and counterclaim were not before the trial court at the time it ruled on the motion for a change of venue, we will not consider the answer and counterclaim or any argument based on those pleadings" (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- stating, on petition for a writ of mandamus, that, "[b]ecause the petitioners' answer and counterclaim were not before the trial court at the time it ruled on the motion for a change of venue, we will not consider the answer and counterclaim or any argument based on those pleadings" (emphasis added)
- "Baldwin County has only a very weak overall connection to the claims in this case, and St. Clair County has a much stronger connection. Therefore, the interest-of-justice prong of the forum non conveniens 28 SC-2024-0572 statute requires that the action be transferred to St. Clair County." (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MURDOCK, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. See, e.g., Ex parte Wachovia Bank, 77 So.3d 570, 576-78 (Ala.2011) (Murdock, J., dissenting).