Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
|
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Alcazar vs. Hayes
|
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
State vs. Eduardo Wells
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Stacy Williford
|
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Antonio Saulsberry/Franklin Howard
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Antonio Saulsberry/Franklin Howard
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Johnny Jones/Clifton Mitchell
|
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Robert Taylor
|
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary Dowdy vs. Myles/Arlene Wilson
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
|
Supreme Court | ||
Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
|
Supreme Court | ||
Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
|
Supreme Court | ||
Wilson vs. Wilson
|
Supreme Court | ||
Robert L. DeLaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
In this case, we are invited to decide whether the Tennessee Plan for election of appellate judges, codified as Title 17, Chapter 4 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, but most particularly because it contemplates “retention elections” for incumbent appellate judges. In general, the Tennessee Plan provides that an incumbent appellate judge may run for reelection unopposed on the ballot, provided the incumbent’s retention has been recommended by the judicial evaluation commission; the judge will be retained in office if a majority of those voting in the election for that judge’s seat vote for such retention. Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-4- 115(d)(1)(1994). It is the duty of all courts, including the Supreme Court, to pass on a constitutional question only when it is absolutely necessary for the determination of thecase and of the rights of parties to the litigation. Glasgow v. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 666-667, 383 S.W. 2d 9, 13-14 (1964). See also, Jackson v. Davis, 530 F. Supp. 2, 4 n. 1 (E.D. Tenn.), aff’d, 667 F. 2d 1026 (6th Cir. 1981). We hold that it is not necessary to address the constitutionality of the Tennessee Plan in this case, because it is not applicable to the facts of this case. For that reason, the Court of Appeals erred in holding the Tennessee Plan constitutional, just as the trial judge erred in holding the Plan unconstitutional. We reach this conclusion because the express provisions of the Tennessee Plan render it inapplicable to the election for which defendant Brook Thompson, State Coordinator of Elections, refused to accept a qualifying petition submitted by the plaintiff, Robert L. DeLaney. |
Supreme Court | ||
State vs. Stephen Osborne
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. David Jones
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Carlos Parker
|
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Stuart Jenkins
|
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Brian Roberson
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Clessie Jaco
|
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nora Meadows vs. Bd. of Emrg. Medical Srvcs.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Sorrell vs. Larry Henson
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Granderson vs. Lisa Hicks
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Theo Jennings vs. Illinois Co.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals |