Jones v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 6-3-2, Ala.Code 1975, governs venue of actions against individuals, but it does not provide for venue of actions against nonresident individuals. Rule 82(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides: “ ‘Actions against nonresident individuals may be brought in any county of the state where such nonresident is. found, or in the county where the subject of the action or portion of the same was when the claim for relief arose or the act on which the action is founded occurred or was to be performed.’ “In Ex parte Cummings, Gazaway & Scott, Inc., 386 So.2d 732 (Ala.1980), this Court held that Rule 82(b)(2) preserved, and made applicable to both legal and equitable actions, the existing rule that an action at law against a nonresident individual could be brought in any county of the state: “ ‘According to the Committee Comments, which were considered by this Court in adopting the final draft of the Rules, Rule 82 was intended to facilitate the merger of law and equity by providing a uniform rule of venue for all actions, whether traditionally brought at law or in equity. The Rule reconciled existing statutes and rules by incorporating “the more liberal provision as to venue in any particular situation.” The common law rule of venue as to actions at law against nonresident defendants (who were not covered by the general venue statute regarding actions at law against individuals, Code 1940, Title 7, § 54 [now Ala.Code 1975, § 6-3-2(a) ]) allowed suit to be brought against nonresident i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 723 So. 2d 19 - Del Mercado v. Owens