From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte King Motor Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Feb 3, 1989
540 So. 2d 62 (Ala. 1989)

Opinion

88-86.

February 3, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Talladega County, Jerry L. Fielding, J.

Arthur F. Fite III of Merrill, Porch, Doster Dillon, Anniston, for petitioner.

William W. Lawrence of Wooten, Thornton, Carpenter, O'Brien and Lazenby, Talladega, for respondent.


Defendant King Motor Company, Inc. ("King"), seeks a writ of mandamus directed to the Honorable Jerry L. Fielding, Circuit Judge for Talladega County, compelling him to set aside his order of June 28, 1988, denying King's motion to transfer the action from Talladega County, Alabama, to Calhoun County, Alabama, on the ground that venue of this action was proper in Calhoun County and not in Talladega County. The denial of King's motion was based solely on deposition testimony that showed that while King did not sell any automobiles in Talladega County, it did solicit business there through advertisements in the Yellow Pages and newspapers and on radio and television. There was, likewise, no evidence that King had an agent present in Talladega County.

We find that the writ is due to be granted on the authority of Ex parte Alpine Bay Resorts, Inc., 518 So.2d 113 (Ala. 1987). The trial judge is directed to enter an order transferring this case to the Circuit Court of Calhoun County.

WRIT GRANTED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte King Motor Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama
Feb 3, 1989
540 So. 2d 62 (Ala. 1989)
Case details for

Ex Parte King Motor Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte KING MOTOR COMPANY, INC. (In re KING MOTOR COMPANY, INC. v. Ann…

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Feb 3, 1989

Citations

540 So. 2d 62 (Ala. 1989)

Citing Cases

Kohring v. Ballard

Among those states, there appears to be something of a consensus that “doing business,” or “regularly…

Ex Parte Cavalier Home Builders, L.L.C

The facts of this case concerning the employer's business thus distinguish it from those present in Ex parte…