William Fones

This case arose from efforts by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska to obtain nominating petitions and appear on the August 1996 ballot for an at-large Tennessee Supreme Court seat, challenging the State Coordinator of Elections' refusal based on the Tennessee Plan's retention election format for Justice Penny White. The Special Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts in part and reversed in part, holding that the vacancy created by Justice O'Brien's resignation must be filled through a contested election under T.C.A. § 17-1-301 and related statutes rather than solely via the retention process. The court reasoned that Article VII, Section 5 of the Tennessee Constitution requires a two-step process for filling judicial vacancies and that the Tennessee Plan does not override these provisions or permit an at-large seat to be filled without regard to the grand division residency requirement. It further ruled that any new vacancy from a retention rejection would not alter the original unexpired term's geographic constraints.

elections

This case consists of consolidated appeals in the Tennessee Supreme Court brought by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska against Brook Thompson and other state officials. The matters before the court were a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and a supplemental petition to rehear filed by one of the appellants. After considering the filings, the court denied the motion for leave to file the amicus brief and also denied the supplemental petition to rehear.

electionsprocedure

The consolidated cases concern challenges by relators John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska to actions by state election officials regarding the 1996 election to fill a vacancy on the Tennessee Supreme Court created by Justice O'Brien's resignation. After earlier orders granting certain equitable relief, the Supreme Court addressed multiple pending motions, including petitions to rehear, a motion for clarification, motions to supplement the record, and petitions to intervene. All motions and petitions were denied except the appellees' motion for clarification. The court clarified that its prior equitable relief applied only to the specific Supreme Court vacancy (later filled by Justice Penny White) and did not extend to intermediate appellate court judges, amending an earlier order by removing language that would have covered other similarly situated judges.

electionsprocedure

This case concerned disputes over qualifying deadlines and eligibility for candidates, including John Jay Hooker, Lewis Laska, and amicus John King, seeking to appear on the ballot for a Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy in the 1996 election. The court extended the statutory May 16, 1996, noon deadline under T.C.A. § 2-5-101 for independent candidates and party nominees to 4:00 p.m. on July 12, 1996, while holding that the vacancy must be filled by a resident of the Eastern Grand Division pursuant to T.C.A. § 17-1-301. The court also maintained prior equitable relief allowing Justice Penny White on the ballot. It reasoned that the unclear statutory scheme for Supreme Court elections made such relief advisable to promote fairness and that the extension aligned with the legislative framework, including analogous deadlines for late nominations under T.C.A. § 2-5-101 and related provisions.

elections

This case involved challenges by John Jay Hooker and Lewis Laska seeking to qualify as candidates for the Tennessee Supreme Court election on August 1, 1996. The court held that the Tennessee Plan for judicial retention did not apply because the evaluation commission had not recommended retention of incumbent Justice White, so general election laws governed and allowed contested candidacies. Hooker was ruled ineligible for the ballot due to his suspended law license, while Laska's case was remanded for a determination of his residency in the Western Grand Division; White and similarly situated incumbents were deemed to have met the May 16, 1996, petition deadline.

elections

This case was a will contest brought by the son and daughter of testator L.T. Matlock against his attorney Paul Simpson, who drafted the will naming himself as primary beneficiary and executor. The jury upheld the will's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed due to erroneous jury instructions on whether a confidential relationship existed and the burden of proof needed to rebut a presumption of undue influence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the reversal and remand, ruling that the attorney-client relationship combined with an unrestricted power of attorney established a confidential relationship as a matter of law, and that the presumption of undue influence arising from such a relationship must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence.

propertyprocedurefamily law