Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-3-7 (2026)

Venue of Actions - Against Foreign and Domestic Corporations.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) All civil actions against corporations may be brought in any of the following counties:

(1) In the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of real property that is the subject of the action is situated; or

(2) In the county of the corporation’s principal office in this state; or

(3) In the county in which the plaintiff resided, or if the plaintiff is an entity other than an individual, where the plaintiff had its principal office in this state, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, if such corporation does business by agent in the county of the plaintiff’s residence; or

(4) If subdivisions (1), (2), or (3) do not apply, in any county in which the corporation was doing business by agent at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.

(b) The residence of only any properly joined named class representative or representatives may be considered in determining proper venue in a class action. The residency of any putative or actual member of a class other than a named representative shall not be considered in determining proper venue for a class action.

(c) Anything to the contrary in Rule 82(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding, in any action against a corporation, venue must be proper as to each and every named plaintiff joined in the action, unless the plaintiffs shall establish that they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence and that the existence of a substantial number of questions of law or material fact common to all those persons not only will arise in the action, but also: (1) that such questions will predominate over individualized questions pertaining to each plaintiff; (2) the action can be maintained more efficiently and economically for all parties than if prosecuted separately; and (3) that the interest of justice supports the joinder of the parties as plaintiffs in one action. If venue is improper for any plaintiff joined in the action, then the claim of any such plaintiff shall be severed and transferred to a court where venue is proper. In the event severance and transfer is mandated and venue is appropriate in more than one court, a defendant sued alone or multiple defendants, by unanimous agreement, shall have the right to select such other court to which the action shall be transferred and, where there are multiple defendants who are unable to agree upon a transferee court, the court in which the action was originally filed may transfer the action to any such other court. Transfer of the action and notice thereof shall be in accord with Section 6-3-22.

(d) Notwithstanding Section 6-3-10, or any local laws relating to venue, in any county having two courthouses, the divisions shall be treated as two separate judicial districts for purposes of venue and for purposes of any change or transfer of venue, unless the jury venire is drawn from throughout the entire county.

(Code 1886, §2642; Code 1896, §4207; Code 1907, §6112; Acts 1919, No. 254, p. 240; Code 1923, §10471; Code 1940, T. 7, §60; Act 99-249, p. 362, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 182 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Ex Parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ex Parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2001). · cites it 36× “I concur, but I write specially to explain more fully my understanding of the Legislature's recent amendment to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7, which governs the venue of actions against corporations.”

Ex Parte Gauntt, 677 So. 2d 204 (Ala. 1996). · cites it 55× “The general corporate venue statute, codified at Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7, provides: "A foreign corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent, and a domestic corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent or was doing business…”

Ex Parte Haynes Downard Andra & Jones, LLP, 924 So. 2d 687 (Ala. 2005). · cites it 34× “When read in para materia with the rest of Ala.Code (1975) § 6-3-7, the text of Section 6-3-7(d) clearly demonstrates that the Legislature directed our courts to apply the substantive venue law for corporations, Section 6-3-7(a)-(c) to the Bessemer Division as though it were a…”

Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wright, 897 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. 2004). · cites it 28× “Unum also asserted in both filings that venue was improper in Bullock County as to all but two of the plaintiffs, citing Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7, and arguing that, because Unum did not have a "principal office" in Alabama, venue would be appropriate only in the county where the…”

Siniard v. Ford Motor Co., 47 So. 3d 234 (Ala. 2010). · cites it 32× “I write separately to express concerns relating to the interplay between the applicable venue statute, § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, and the "interest-of-justice" provision of § 6-3-21.”

Estano v. Greenetrack, Inc., 25 So. 3d 449 (Ala. 2009). · cites it 33× “Alternatively, Greenetrack moved the trial court to transfer the case to Greene County pursuant to § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, which governs venue as to corporations, or under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, § 6-3-21.”

Ex Parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005). · cites it 13× “The defendants also argue that the trial court exceeded its discretion in issuing the CMO because, they say, the trial court erred in determining that venue in Jefferson County was proper under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7(c). That statute provides, in pertinent part: "[V]enue must be…”

Ex Parte Hanna Steel Corp., 905 So. 2d 805 (Ala. 2004). · cites it 30× “This is consistent with the overall purpose behind the entire 1999 revisions to the Ala.Code § 6-3-7, and it is consistent with the inclusion of the newly created subsection `d' with the new general venue statute.”

Bice v. Micon Prods. Int'l, Inc., 961 So. 2d 111 (Ala. 2006). · cites it 25× “Local Acts 1919 (“the Bessemer Act”)— § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, applies to actions brought in the Bessemer Division that arise outside of Jefferson County.”

Saulsberry v. Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc., 74 So. 3d 940 (Ala. 2011). · cites it 28× “That section provides, in pertinent part: "(a) All civil actions against corporations may be brought in any of the following counties: "(1) In the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of real…”

Maddox v. Ford Motor Co., 73 So. 3d 597 (Ala. 2011). · cites it 20× “, [3] or for § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, [4] to override the Bessemer Act and its limitations on the judicial power of the Bessemer Division over claims arising in that division.”

Tinney v. East Alabama Med. Ctr., 109 So. 3d 1114 (Ala. 2012). · cites it 15× “” On November 18, 2011, EAMC moved to transfer the action to Lee County, citing § 6-3-7, Ala. Code 1975, and stating that its principal office is located in Opelika, Lee County; that Lee County is where all actions taken by EAMC, such as telephone calls and letters, occurred;…”

Show all 182 citing cases →

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(3) — 1 case

Ex parte Progressive Direct Ins. Co.., 169 So. 3d 1030 (Ala. 2014).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a) — 36 cases

Ex Parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2001). “I concur, but I write specially to explain more fully my understanding of the Legislature's recent amendment to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7, which governs the venue of actions against corporations.”

Ex Parte Movie Gallery, Inc., 31 So. 3d 104 (Ala. 2009).

Estano v. Greenetrack, Inc., 25 So. 3d 449 (Ala. 2009). “Alternatively, Greenetrack moved the trial court to transfer the case to Greene County pursuant to § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, which governs venue as to corporations, or under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, § 6-3-21.”

Ex parte Tier 1 Trucking, LLC, 222 So. 3d 1107 (Ala. 2016).

Siniard v. Ford Motor Co., 47 So. 3d 234 (Ala. 2010). “I write separately to express concerns relating to the interplay between the applicable venue statute, § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, and the "interest-of-justice" provision of § 6-3-21.”

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(1) — 20 cases

Saulsberry v. Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc., 74 So. 3d 940 (Ala. 2011). “That section provides, in pertinent part: "(a) All civil actions against corporations may be brought in any of the following counties: "(1) In the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of real…”

Maddox v. Ford Motor Co., 73 So. 3d 597 (Ala. 2011). “, [3] or for § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, [4] to override the Bessemer Act and its limitations on the judicial power of the Bessemer Division over claims arising in that division.”

Tinney v. East Alabama Med. Ctr., 109 So. 3d 1114 (Ala. 2012). “” On November 18, 2011, EAMC moved to transfer the action to Lee County, citing § 6-3-7, Ala. Code 1975, and stating that its principal office is located in Opelika, Lee County; that Lee County is where all actions taken by EAMC, such as telephone calls and letters, occurred;…”

Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wright, 897 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. 2004). “Unum also asserted in both filings that venue was improper in Bullock County as to all but two of the plaintiffs, citing Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7, and arguing that, because Unum did not have a "principal office" in Alabama, venue would be appropriate only in the county where the…”

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(2) — 21 cases

Ex Parte Movie Gallery, Inc., 31 So. 3d 104 (Ala. 2009).

Ex parte Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., 228 So. 3d 1008 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).

Webster v. Se. Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC, 94 So. 3d 371 (Ala. 2012).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(3) — 35 cases

Ex Parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79 (Ala. 2002).

Elliott v. Int'l Paper Co., 80 So. 3d 908 (Ala. 2011).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(4) — 5 cases

Ex parte Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., 228 So. 3d 1008 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).

Fleet Force, Inc. v. Adams, 11 So. 3d 243 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(i) — 1 case

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(a)(l) — 15 cases

Stover v. Synagro-WWT, Inc., 42 So. 3d 1228 (Ala. 2010).

SafetyNet Youth Sys., LLC v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 862 (Ala. 2013).

Ex parte Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 210 So. 3d 618 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(c) — 8 cases

Ex Parte Flexible Prods. Co., 915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005). “The defendants also argue that the trial court exceeded its discretion in issuing the CMO because, they say, the trial court erred in determining that venue in Jefferson County was proper under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-7(c). That statute provides, in pertinent part: "[V]enue must be…”

Bice v. Micon Prods. Int'l, Inc., 961 So. 2d 111 (Ala. 2006). “Local Acts 1919 (“the Bessemer Act”)— § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, applies to actions brought in the Bessemer Division that arise outside of Jefferson County.”

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(d) — 12 cases

Ex Parte Haynes Downard Andra & Jones, LLP, 924 So. 2d 687 (Ala. 2005). “When read in para materia with the rest of Ala.Code (1975) § 6-3-7, the text of Section 6-3-7(d) clearly demonstrates that the Legislature directed our courts to apply the substantive venue law for corporations, Section 6-3-7(a)-(c) to the Bessemer Division as though it were a…”

Ex Parte Hanna Steel Corp., 905 So. 2d 805 (Ala. 2004). “This is consistent with the overall purpose behind the entire 1999 revisions to the Ala.Code § 6-3-7, and it is consistent with the inclusion of the newly created subsection `d' with the new general venue statute.”

Ex Parte Walter Indus., Inc., 879 So. 2d 547 (Ala. 2003).

— Ala. Code § 6-3-7(e) — 3 cases

Bice v. Micon Prods. Int'l, Inc., 915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005).

Pratt v. WestPoint Stevens, Inc., 815 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2001).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.