Crowell vs. Hasty
01A01-9609-CH-00431
Trial Court Judge: Tyrus H. Cobb

Kidd vs. Hawthorne
01A01-9808-CV-00413
Trial Court Judge: Houston M. Goddard

State vs. Harry Clardy
01C01-9710-CC-00457
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

State vs. Johnny Jones/Clifton Mitchell
02C01-9801-CC-00026

State vs. Stacy Williford
02C01-9710-CC-00416

State vs. Robert Taylor
02C01-9808-CC-00239

State vs. Eduardo Wells
02C01-9709-CR-00345

Mary Dowdy vs. Myles/Arlene Wilson
02A01-9709-CV-00237
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell

See State v. Archer, 851 S.W .2D 157 (Tenn . 1993).
02C01-9907-CC-00219

Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
03S01-9712-CV-00139

Sanjines vs. Ortwein & Assoc.
03S01-9712-CV-00139

Wilson vs. Wilson
01S01-9807-CV-00130

Robert L. DeLaney v. Brook Thompson, et al.
01S01-9808-CH-00144
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Ames Davis, Special Supreme Court
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

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.

Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
01S01-9703-CV-00048

Walker vs. Saturn Corp.
01S01-9703-CV-00048

Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01S01-9710-CV-00218

Est. of Ruth Garrett vs. St. Thomas Hospital
01S01-9710-CV-00218

Alcazar vs. Hayes
03S01-9804-CV-00035

State vs. Antonio Saulsberry/Franklin Howard
02C01-9710-CR-00406

State vs. Antonio Saulsberry/Franklin Howard
02C01-9710-CR-00406

State vs. Stephen Osborne
01C01-9708-CC-00327
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State vs. David Jones
01C01-9710-CC-00445

State vs. Carlos Parker
01C01-9712-CC-00574
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch

State vs. Stuart Jenkins
01C01-9712-CR-00590
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux