Court Opinion

ID: 9863140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:08:07.811635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:44.151045
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Counsel for Harris have filed herein a very courteous, conscientious and dignified petition to rehear. This petition though is merely a reargument of what was argued at the bar of this Court and in the original briefs herein. It is true a number of other authorities are cited in this petition to rehear but they are all in effect covered in later decisions which were considered in our original opinion. Thus it is, after reviewing these opinions, we have concluded that nothing could be gained by reviewing them in a further opinion.
The facts are likewise again very forcefully argued in this petition to rehear, but we in reading this *590record originally concluded that there were sufficient circumstances, etc., that if the jury believed them, this was sufficient as stated in our original opinion. We have not changed our opinion. Since we find that this petition to rehear consists of reargument merely it does not justify a rehearing under Rule 32 of this Court. 76 Tenn. 763; 79 Tenn. 7; Louisville & N. RR. Co. v. United State Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Tenn. 658, 691, 693, 148 S.W. 671, and the rule as it appears in Volume 185 of the Tennessee Reports at page 879. For this reason the petition to rehear is denied.