Whenever, either by common law or the statutes of another state or of the United States, a claim, either upon contract or in tort has arisen outside this state against any person or corporation, such claim may be enforceable in the courts of this state in any county in which jurisdiction of the defendant can be legally obtained in the same manner in which jurisdiction could have been obtained if the claim had arisen in this state; provided, however, the courts of this state shall apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in determining whether to accept or decline to take jurisdiction of an action based upon such claim originating outside this state; and provided further that, if upon motion of any defendant it is shown that there exists a more appropriate forum outside this state, taking into account the location where the acts giving rise to the action occurred, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice. Such dismissal may be conditioned upon the defendant or defendants filing with the court a consent (i) to submit to jurisdiction in the identified forum, or (ii) to waive any defense based upon a statute of limitations if an action on the same cause of action is commenced in the identified forum within 60 days of the dismissal.
(Acts 1907, Ex. Sess., No. 47, p. 67; Code 1923, §5681; Code 1940, T. 7, §97; Acts 1987, No. 87-182, p. 244.)
Notes of Decisions
Ex Parte DaimlerChrysler Corp., 952 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 2006).
· cites it 18× “Section 6-5-430 provides: "Whenever, either by common law or the statutes of another state or of the United States, a claim, either upon contract or in tort has arisen outside this state against any person or corporation, such claim may be enforceable in the courts of this state…”
Ex Parte Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 721 So. 2d 1135 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 10× “" Prudential moved to dismiss, without prejudice, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to Jefferson County, Alabama, pursuant to Ala.”
Malsch v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 916 So. 2d 600 (Ala. 2005).
· cites it 14× “Bell Helicopter moved to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens pursuant to § 6-5-430, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action.”
Vandergriff v. S. Ry. Co., 537 So. 2d 904 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 33× “Vandergriff, appeals from a dismissal in favor of Southern Railway Company based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-430. On August 2, 1984, Vandergriff, who is a Virginia resident, was injured while working for Southern Railway in Kent…”
Ex Parte United Broth. of Carpenters, 688 So. 2d 246 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 14× “The UPIU, a labor organization based in Nashville, Tennessee, moved to dismiss upon the condition that it would consent to jurisdiction in Minnesota and waive the statute of limitations as a defense if BE&K filed the same action in Minnesota within 60 days of dismissal, pursuant…”
Ex Parte Illinois Cent. Gulf Rr Co., 537 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1988).
· cites it 14× “Both motions to dismiss are based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and a recent amendment to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, adopting that doctrine.”
Ex Parte Gen. Nutrition Corp., 855 So. 2d 475 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 10× “The petitioners responded to Gregory's action by filing a joint motion to dismiss, based upon improper venue, arguing that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, codified in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, required that the trial court dismiss the case so that it could be refiled in…”
Ex Parte Ford Motor Credit Co., 561 So. 2d 244 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990).
· cites it 7× “The motions to dismiss are based upon § 6-5-430, Code 1975. The motions for change of venue are based upon § 6-3-21.”
Ex Parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So. 2d 547 (Ala. 2003).
· cites it 2× “On February 7, 2002, Troutman, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, moved in each case to dismiss the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs against it on the ground of forum non conveniens.”
Ex Parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So. 3d 536 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 2× “1998) (comparing the use of the word "shall" in Alabama's interstate forum non conveniens statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, with its use in § 6-3-21.”
Ex Parte Daimlerchrysler Corp., 899 So. 2d 928 (Ala. 2004).
· cites it 15× “In addition, DCC moved to dismiss the action, arguing that because the action arose in Georgia, § 6-5-430, Ala. Code 1975, the forum non conveniens statute mandated that the trial court decline jurisdiction and dismiss the action so that lí could be refiled in Georgia.”
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.