Court Opinion

ID: 9897619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:18:58.832799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:56.065258
License: Public Domain

11/09/2023
               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                           AT NASHVILLE
                            Assigned on Briefs July 3, 2023

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ET AL. v. MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY,
                        INC. ET AL.

                Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County
                  No. 22-1025-III   Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
                      ___________________________________

                           No. M2022-01260-COA-R3-CV
                       ___________________________________

W. NEAL MCBRAYER, J., concurring.

       I would also affirm the dismissal of the petition for access to public records and to
obtain judicial review of denial of access. But I would do so only “on the threshold issue”
identified by the trial court. The trial court framed the issue as “whether Tennessee Code
Annotated constitutes a document required for public access under the Public Records
Act.” On that threshold issue, I reach the same conclusion as the trial court and the
majority. State law otherwise provides for access to Tennessee Code Annotated, so
Tennessee Code Annotated is not a “state record” subject to disclosure under the Public
Records Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(a)(2)(A) (Supp. 2023) (making all state
records “open for personal inspection by any citizen of this state . . . unless otherwise
provided by state law”); see also Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson
Cnty., 485 S.W.3d 857, 865 (Tenn. 2016) (recognizing Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-
503(a)(2)(A) as “a general exception to the Public Records Act, based on state law”). The
trial court recognized that resolving the threshold issue was “dispositive, making it
unnecessary to decide the other two defenses asserted.” Yet, “in the interest of avoiding a
time-consuming and expensive remand” in the event of a reversal on the threshold issue, it
also ruled on the other defenses.

       There was no need to consider the other defenses. As the petitioner/appellant, David
L. Hudson, Jr., and the respondent/appellee, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., recognize,
the issues on appeal all present questions of law. So the possibility of a time-consuming
and expensive remand was remote. When a trial court reaches a correct result, here
dismissal, but states an erroneous reason for the result, the result may be affirmed on the
correct rationale if it is apparent from the record. See Denny v. Wilson Cnty., 281 S.W.2d
671, 675 (Tenn. 1955). I would affirm dismissal of the petition solely because Tennessee
Code Annotated is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. It fits within the
“state law” exception found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-503(a)(2)(A).

                                                  s/ W. Neal McBrayer
                                               W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JUDGE

                                           2