Legal Opinion · Dissent

SafetyNet Youth Systems, LLC v. Guarantee Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 14, 2013No. 1120337Published

1DissentMurdock, Justice

I respectfully dissent.

First, I question the significance of the main opinion’s quotations from Ex parte Windom, 840 So.2d 885, 889 n. 2 (Ala.2002), and Ex parte Pikeville Country Club, 844 So.2d 1186, 1188-89 (Ala.2002), insofar as those cases discuss the meaning of the term “injury” in venue cases applying the predecessor of current § 6-3-7(a)(1), Ala Code 1975. That term no longer is found in § 6-3-7(a)(l). See Act 99-249, Ala. Acts.1999.

Further, those cases are quoted as part of two separate discussions of the proper venue of the various tort claims asserted by SafetyNet Youth Systems,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ex Parte Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2006
  2. Ex Parte Pikeville Country ClubSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  3. Ex Parte Suzuki Mobile, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2006
  4. Siniard v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2010
  5. Maddox v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API