Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Southern Ry. Co.green2 sentences1993Ex parte Southern Railway Co. , 556 So.2d 1082 (Ala. 1989). 1990Section 6-5-430, as amended effective June 11, 1987, 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 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 dete | 2 | 5 |
Ex Parte Perfection Siding, Inc.green2 sentences2013Such 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.” (Emphasis added.) “The purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to ‘prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and also to protect witnesses, litigants, and the public against unnecessary expense and inconvenience.’ ” Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 S 2006Such 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." "The purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to `prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and also to protect witnesses, litigants, and the public against unnecessary expense and inconvenience.'" Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc. , 882 So.2d 307 , 312 (Al | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, Inc.green2 sentences2025That doctrine is codified in § 6-5-430, Ala. Code 1975, which provides, in pertinent part: "Whenever … a claim … has arisen outside of 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 up 2003Such 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.” As this Court stated in Ex parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, Inc., 638 So.2d 842 (Ala.1994): “The doctrine of forum non conve-niens requires the court to determine whether to accept or decline jurisdiction of an action based upon a claim arising outside the state. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Snow v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2000The State says in its brief, “The State acknowledges that the mother is barred' from initiating this action based upon the doctrine of res judicata.” It contends, however, that in light of Ex parte Snow, 508 So.2d 266 (Ala.1987), the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a paternity action by the child under the Alabama Uniform Parentage Act (§§ 26-17-1 through -22, Ala.Code 1975). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ex Parte Allied-Signal, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Such 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." In Ex parte Allied-Signal, Inc. , 561 So.2d 1062 (Ala. 1990), while this Court held that the decision whether to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens is within the trial court's discretion, it held that all of the factors under § 6-5-430 must be positiv | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Stewart v. Litchenberg
green
2 sentences1989Such 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." Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been followed in other jurisdictions for a number of years, Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. of New York , 258 N.Y. 315 , 179 N.E. 712 (1932); Stewart v. Litchenberg , 148 La. 195 , 86 So. 734 (1920); Blair, "The Doc 1989Such 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." Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been followed in other jurisdictions for a number of years, Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. of New York , 258 N.Y. 315 , 179 N.E. 712 (1932); Stewart v. Litchenberg , 148 La. 195 , 86 So. 734 (1920); Blair, "The Doc | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wedemann v. United States Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1989Such 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." Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been followed in other jurisdictions for a number of years, Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. of New York , 258 N.Y. 315 , 179 N.E. 712 (1932); Stewart v. Litchenberg , 148 La. 195 , 86 So. 734 (1920); Blair, "The Doc 1989Such 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." Although the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been followed in other jurisdictions for a number of years, Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. of New York , 258 N.Y. 315 , 179 N.E. 712 (1932); Stewart v. Litchenberg , 148 La. 195 , 86 So. 734 (1920); Blair, "The Doc | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board
neutral
2 sentences1976The plaintiff submits: (1) The complaint and facts of the case are within the borders of the rule of Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488 , 218 So.2d 817 (1969); (2) governmental immunity will not bar an action based upon the rule of Paul ; (3) the holding of Paul has been distinguished and narrowed but not overruled; and, that (4) the decisions of Hembree v. Hospital Board of Morgan County, supra, and Smith v. Houston County Hospital Board, supra, unduly limited the earlier holdings of Paul and Vines v. Crescent Transit Company, 264 Ala. 114 , 85 So.2d 436 (1955). 1976The plaintiff submits: (1) The complaint and facts of the case are within the borders of the rule of Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488 , 218 So.2d 817 (1969); (2) governmental immunity will not bar an action based upon the rule of Paul ; (3) the holding of Paul has been distinguished and narrowed but not overruled; and, that (4) the decisions of Hembree v. Hospital Board of Morgan County, supra, and Smith v. Houston County Hospital Board, supra, unduly limited the earlier holdings of Paul and Vines v. Crescent Transit Company, 264 Ala. 114 , 85 So.2d 436 (1955). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Vines v. Crescent Transit Company
green
2 sentences1976The plaintiff submits: (1) The complaint and facts of the case are within the borders of the rule of Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488 , 218 So.2d 817 (1969); (2) governmental immunity will not bar an action based upon the rule of Paul ; (3) the holding of Paul has been distinguished and narrowed but not overruled; and, that (4) the decisions of Hembree v. Hospital Board of Morgan County, supra, and Smith v. Houston County Hospital Board, supra, unduly limited the earlier holdings of Paul and Vines v. Crescent Transit Company, 264 Ala. 114 , 85 So.2d 436 (1955). 1976The plaintiff submits: (1) The complaint and facts of the case are within the borders of the rule of Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488 , 218 So.2d 817 (1969); (2) governmental immunity will not bar an action based upon the rule of Paul ; (3) the holding of Paul has been distinguished and narrowed but not overruled; and, that (4) the decisions of Hembree v. Hospital Board of Morgan County, supra, and Smith v. Houston County Hospital Board, supra, unduly limited the earlier holdings of Paul and Vines v. Crescent Transit Company, 264 Ala. 114 , 85 So.2d 436 (1955). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.