Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order

DecidedJune 18, 2013

DocketE2012-00934-COA-R3-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order (Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

FRANDA WEBB, ET AL. v. FIRST TENNESSEE BROKERAGE, ET AL.

Circuit Court for Knox County No. 2-548-09

No. E2012-00934-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 18, 2013

ORDER

The appellants in this case have filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. They assert that they have not been heard on certain issues that go to the underlying merits of the case and are being denied due process. The appellants rely on a recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. Wade, W2012-00321-SC-S10-CV, 2013 WL 1800212 (Tenn. Apr. 30, 2013).1

Rehearing may be granted on a petition of a party in this court’s discretion. Tenn. R. App. P. 39(a). Courts consider the following reasons in determining whether to grant rehearing: “(1) the court’s opinion incorrectly states the material facts established by the evidence and set forth in the record; (2) the court’s opinion is in conflict with a statue, prior decision, or other principle of law; (3) the court’s opinion overlooks or misapprehends a material fact or proposition of law; (4) the court’s opinion relies upon matters of fact or law upon which the parties have not been heard and that are open to reasonable dispute.” Id.

We have carefully reviewed the petition and have determined that it contains a meritorious assertion. Accordingly, we grant the petition. We agree that the opinion first filed in this matter should be withdrawn. It is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the opinion filed along with this order. Costs are taxed to the appellees, Franda Webb and D.P., a minor, by & through his legal custodian, Franda Webb.

1 We, of course, did not have the benefit of Glassman before our opinion was issued in this case. ____________________________________________ JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE

____________________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE

____________________________________________ THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JUDGE

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

FRANDA WEBB, ET AL. v. FIRST TENNESSEE BROKERAGE, ET AL.

Circuit Court for Knox County No. 2-548-09

No. E2012-00934-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 18, 2013

ORDER

The appellants in this case have filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. They assert that they have not been heard on certain issues that go to the underlying merits of the case and are being denied due process. The appellants rely on a recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. Wade, W2012-00321-SC-S10-CV, 2013 WL 1800212 (Tenn. Apr. 30, 2013).1

Rehearing may be granted on a petition of a party in this court’s discretion. Tenn. R. App. P. 39(a). Courts consider the following reasons in determining whether to grant rehearing: “(1) the court’s opinion incorrectly states the material facts established by the evidence and set forth in the record; (2) the court’s opinion is in conflict with a statue, prior decision, or other principle of law; (3) the court’s opinion overlooks or misapprehends a material fact or proposition of law; (4) the court’s opinion relies upon matters of fact or law upon which the parties have not been heard and that are open to reasonable dispute.” Id.

We have carefully reviewed the petition and have determined that it contains a meritorious assertion. Accordingly, we grant the petition. We agree that the opinion first filed in this matter should be withdrawn. It is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the opinion filed along with this order. Costs are taxed to the appellees, Franda Webb and D.P., a minor, by & through his legal custodian, Franda Webb.

1 We, of course, did not have the benefit of Glassman before our opinion was issued in this case. ____________________________________________ JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE

____________________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE

____________________________________________ THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc. - Order, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franda-webb-v-first-tennessee-brokerage-inc-order-tennctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack