Court Opinion

ID: 9661295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:34:40.385662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:05.794504
License: Public Domain

STUART, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur fully in the determination that Greenetrack, Inc., was not doing business by agent in Pickens County so as to make venue in that county proper. I dissented from this Court’s decision in Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So.2d 79 (Ala.2002), and I continue to maintain that that case was erroneously decided. By purchasing more than $50,000 in construction materials in Chambers County, Scott Bridge Company was not doing business by agent in Chambers County. Likewise, by operating a bus that picked up potential patrons in Pickens County and transported them to Greenetrack’s gaming facility in Greene County, Greenetrack was not doing business by agent in Pickens County. Such activities are tangential to the business of each of those corporations.