Opinion ID: 1911187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discretionary Jurisdiction

Text: UT asserts, in the alternative, that the State of Alabama should, consistent with the doctrine of comity, permissively afford UT the sovereign immunity UT says that it enjoys in the State of Tennessee. Comity is ... a principle of courtesy by which the courts of one jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction merely out of deference and respect. State ex rel. Speer v. Haynes, 392 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Ala.Civ.App.1979), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Haynes, 392 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1980). In determining whether to apply comity, we must remain sensitive to the rights of our own citizens and our duties and obligations to them. Id. We cannot, absent some overriding policy, leave Alabama residents without redress within this State, relating to alleged acts of wrongdoing by an agency of another State, where those alleged acts are associated with substantial commercial activities in Alabama. We conclude that comity is not such an overriding policy in this instance. UT indicates that granting it sovereign immunity in this case could not be any great burden on the people of Alabama, who, it says, are accustomed to the immunity shared by instrumentalities of this State, and that to extend it to UT here would promote harmony with Tennessee. We disagree with the suggestion that to extend sovereign immunity to UT would not be appreciably different in effect from the extension of immunity to an agency or instrumentality of the State of Alabama. Agencies of the State of Alabama are subject to legislative control, administrative oversight, and public accountability in Alabama; UT is not. Actions taken by an agency or instrumentality of this state are subject always to the will of the democratic process in Alabama. UT, as an instrumentality of the State of Tennessee, operates outside such controls in this State. Moreover, if, as UT suggests, comity is an extension of deference, proffered in the interest of harmony or cooperation, then logically, comity is not an issue of import here, given these considerations, unless some disharmony with Tennessee may result in its absence. UT does not indicate that a failure to extend comity would result in disharmony with the State of Tennessee. Rather, UT asserts only that to extend UT sovereign immunity in this case is consistent with notions of comity and harmonious interstate relations. That may be true, but that argument fails to address whether a failure to extend comity would be inconsistent with harmonious interstate relations in this instance; [2] it suggests no specific basis for denying Faulkner and other persons similarly situated a remedy in this State, in the interest of preventing disharmony. REVERSED AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS and INGRAM, JJ., concur. HOUSTON, J., dissents.