Court Opinion

ID: 9932133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:32:18.578029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:24.326778
License: Public Domain

The majority's reasoning means that a parent corporation's ownership of all the stock of a subsidiary corporation constitutes, for venue purposes, "doing business" wherever the subsidiary does business.
I would hold that ownership of all the stock of a subsidiary corporation is not "doing business" by the parent corporation in the counties where the subsidiary corporation *Page 793 
does business, unless the subsidiary corporation is either an agent of the parent (see Ex parte Peabody Galion Co.,497 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1986) or an alter ego of the parent or the parent is estopped to deny that it is doing business by its subsidiary corporation (see, Ex parte Baker, 432 So.2d 1281 (Ala. 1983);Duff v. Southern Ry., 496 So.2d 760 (Ala. 1986); and Larrimorev. Hospital Corp. of America, 514 So.2d 840 (Ala. 1987).) I refuse to join the majority, for fear of doing violence to principles of corporate law.
STEAGALL, J., concurs.