John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al. - Dissenting

Case Number
M2004-02185-COA-R3-CV

The trial court specifically found that the complaint herein was “duplicative of matters already settled and litigated by rulings of superior courts.” Nonetheless, the court decided sanctions were not appropriate due to the ambiguity created by the Special Master’s determination the case could proceed under the order limiting the cases filed by the plaintiff. The majority opinion agrees that the lawsuit’s clearance under the screening order and the Attorney General’s failure to challenge the result of that screening justify the refusal to impose sanctions. Thus, the test applied by the trial court and the majority of this court is whether the complaint complied with the screening order.

Authoring Judge
Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Originating Judge
Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Case Name
John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al. - Dissenting
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version