Ex parte Ryerson & Son, Inc., [Ms. 1200767, Mar. 18, 2022] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2022). The Court (Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Bolin and Sellers, JJ., concur specially) denies without opinion a petition for writ of certiorari seeking dismissal of an action on limitations grounds. Justice Sellers’s special writing notes that
“[D]enial of Ryerson’s mandamus petition does not operate as a decision on the merits regarding whether the statute of limitations bars Harris’s claim against Ryerson and does not prohibit the trial court from again considering that issue at a later time. See, e.g., R.E. Grills, Inc. v. Davison, 641 So. 2d 225, 229 (Ala. 1994) (“[T]he denial [of a petition for a writ of mandamus] does not operate as a binding decision on the merits.”); Cutler v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 770 So. 2d 67, 69 (Ala. 2000)(“[B]ecause of the extraordinary nature of a writ of mandamus, the denial of relief by mandamus does not have res judicata effect.”); Shell v. Butcher, [Ms. 1200097, May 14, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2021)(holding that the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus did not operate to create law of the case).
Ms. **4-5.