The Court's action in this case is not supported by the precedent on which it relies. In National Bank of North America, the Utah Supreme Court erroneously held that ยง 94 was "permissive and not exclusive." We remanded because that court had not reached the waiver issue in its previous opinion. In the present case, however, the state courts have given no explanation for their rejection of petitioner's venue claim. A remand in this case can only rest on the unwarranted assumption that the state courts relied on some ground other than waiver. The presumption, however, should be that the state courts recognized and relied on the strongest argument in favor of their holding, in this case, the waiver argument.
I am therefore unable to concur in the Court's summary action in this case. Since this case is unworthy of plenary review, I would deny certiorari.