Court Opinion

ID: 9858664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:34:38.238197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:26.649451
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
McCANLESS, Justice.
In this cause the Attorney General and Reporter has filed his petition to rehear, seeking a clarification of the Court’s majority opinion, filed March 19, 1973, insisting that that opinion leaves undetermined the manner in which the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court is to be filled. This is not a correct understanding of our opinion. We grant the petition to rehear in order to explain and clarify this feature of it.
We held that there was no election as the Constitution requires for that part of the term that began on September 1, 1972. The vacancy exists. We also held valid Chapter 198 of the Public Acts of 1971 (Sections 17-701 to 17-716, inclusive, Tennessee Code Annotated), the statute under the authority of which vacancies on the Supreme Court must be filled.
Nothing in our opinion was intended to prevent the Governor from now giving notice to the Appellate Court Nominating Commission of the existence of the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Creson and receiving nominees therefrom all as provided by Chapter 198 of the Public Acts of 1971.
CHATTIN, J., and McAMIS and WILSON, Special Justices, concur.
ON PETITION TO REHEAR
McCANLESS, Justice.
Defendant Taylor has filed a petition to rehear. It points out no decisive matter of law or fact overlooked, but argues matters which this defendant insists were improperly decided.
“The office of a petition to rehear is to call the attention of the court to matters overlooked, not those things which counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration.” West v. Carr, 212 Tenn. 367, 370 S.W.2d 469 [1963],
The petition is denied.
CHATTIN, J., and McAMIS and WILSON, Special Justices, concur.
DYER, C. J., not participating.
ON PETITION TO REHEAR
McCANLESS, Justice.
Defendant Turley has filed an earnest petition to rehear. He insists we misconstrued and misapplied T.C.A. Section 17-712(2). We disagree.
At the time the Governor appointed Tur-ley by constitutional mandate he could only appoint him subject to the election of August 3, 1972. Article 7, Section 5, Constitution of Tennessee.
To construe and apply T.C.A. Section 17-712(2), as insisted by this defendant, would amount to an unconstitutional application of that Section.
The petition is denied.
*496CHATTIN, J., and McAMIS and WILSON, Special Justices, concur.
DYER, C. J., not participating.