Court Opinion

ID: 9773321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:42:05.129118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:18.377819
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Justice,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I.

Concurring

I fully concur in so much of the majority opinion as holds that prior decisional law 1 to the effect that a case is “not now and has never been before this Court” unless the writ of certiorari is granted, is “completely erroneous”.
There is no escape from the conclusion that on the instant of the filing of a petition for the writ of certiorari, the Court acquires a limited or preliminary or inchoate jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction vests for the purpose of enabling the Court to determine the merit of the application for review by writ of certiorari. Without this limited jurisdiction the certiorari process would be utterly destroyed in that jurisdiction could never vest to even consider the petitions. If we hold that jurisdiction only vests when the writ if granted, the interest of justice would require a grant in all cases. This would pervert the process by the imposition of a work load that would destroy the functional effectiveness of this Court.2
Upon the filing of the writ, the Court in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion may utilize any one of a number of procedural options.
First, it may grant the writ and dispose of it in accordance with the various options set forth in § 27-821, T.C.A.3
Second, it may deny the writ without assigning any reason. This simply means that the Court has declined to accept jurisdiction for any purpose except consideration of the merits of the petition in order to determine whether to grant or deny.
Third, it may deny the writ with a written memorandum or opinion, which may or may not be designated for publication. This means that the Court has elected to decide the controversy, or clarify the law, or considers it desirable to outline procedure on remand or that it has used this *551means of advising the trial court and counsel of the Court’s views on a controlling principle of law; or for other good and sufficient reasons, considers this to be proper procedure.
In Cantrell, supra, the Court wrote an opinion denying certiorari in order to clarify the law with respect to the necessity for arguments on petitions for certiorari.
In McAllester, supra, the Court clarified a point of procedure in chancery cases, examined the evidence, commented upon its weight, and denied the writ.
In Gillespie v. Martin et al., 172 Tenn. 28, 109 S.W.2d 93 (1937), the Court upheld the Court of Appeals, decided the controversy and denied the writ.
In Pass v. State, 181 Tenn. 613, 184 S.W.2d 1 (1944), the Court took jurisdiction, decided the case and denied the writ.
In the recent case of Watts v. Putnam County, 525 S.W.2d 488 (Tenn.1975), we took jurisdiction and denied the writ, in an elaborate opinion for the guidance of the trial judge on remand and to clarify the law by construing a troublesome statute.
II.

Dissenting

Regardless of the reasons prompting the Court to write an opinion in conjunction with the denial of a writ of certiorari, the fact remains that the opinion so written or the mandate entered is entitled to respect as the official action of this Court. Upon remand the action of this Court becomes the law of the case and is conclusive in subsequent proceedings. City of Knoxville v. Connors, 139 Tenn. 45, 201 S.W. 133 (1917); Ray et al. v. Nanney, 21 Tenn.App. 618, 114 S.W.2d 51 (1938). See also Redwood v. Raskind, 49 Tenn.App. 69, 350 S.W.2d 414 (1961), and Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn.App. 582, 442 S.W.2d 661 (1968).
I would hold that the memorandum opinion of this Court dated April 1, 1974 suggesting that consideration be given to petitioner’s claim for homestead on remand and holding that such right is assertible on remand is the law of the case and, as such, is binding upon the Court of Appeals. That court has no authority to overrule or modify a decision of this Court. Bloodworth v. Stuart, 221 Tenn. 567, 428 S.W.2d 786 (1968).
As I read the majority opinion, the right of this Court to write an authoritative opinion denying the writ is not questioned so long as the final opinion of the Court of Appeals is not modified, but this Court may not deny the writ and alter such a final decision.
My reasoning processes cannot comprehend such esoteric and ethereal enlightenment. If we deny the writ and agree with the Court of Appeals our jurisdictional feet are planted in concrete; but if we disagree, they are made of clay and stand in sand.
This Court has the inherent power to deny certiorari and direct the further disposition of the case on remand. It is a power that should be used sparingly since it deprives counsel of oral argument, a right which we, very properly, liberally indulge.
I do not look with favor upon frittering away our jurisdiction. We have recently spoken to this issue in no uncertain terms. In Barger v. Brock, 535 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.1976), after recognizing that this Court “is supreme in fact as well as in name”, we said:
It is a controlling principle that inferior courts must abide the orders, decrees and precedents of higher courts. The slightest deviation from this rigid rule would disrupt and destroy the sanctity of the judicial process. There would be no finality or stability in the law and the court system would be chaotic in its operation and unstable and inconsistent in its decisions. Personal and property rights would be insecure and litigation would know no end. 535 S.W.2d at 341.
The conservation of judicial manpower in the face of a crushing certiorari work load demands that this Court indulge in the practice of writing opinions in cases wherein certiorari is denied. A proper regard for the intermediate appellate courts and for *552the attorneys and litigants involved commands the same conclusion.
It is patently unfair for us to deny a petition and “concur in the results only”, leaving the intermediate courts in a quandary as to the reasons for our action. Moreover, in many of those cases where there has been a remand, we place the trial judge and counsel in a position of having to speculate as to our reasons.
In place of denying the petition and concurring in the results only we should forthrightly state the reasons for our denial. Such a statement need not be elaborate but should be sufficient to apprise all lower courts and counsel of the precise reasons prompting our action.
In many instances we concur in the results only because of our disagreement with only a portion — sometimes a single sentence or paragraph of an opinion otherwise without objection.
The result of this practice is that many outstanding opinions of our intermediate appellate courts are consigned to oblivion and much scholarly research is lost to the profession.
It is this procedure which has produced the rule that our denial of certiorari means only that we have concurred in the results reached by the intermediate appellate courts. See Adams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn.1977) (opinion released February 28, 1977).
Under a proper certiorari procedure, our denial of the writ should mean that we affirm in all respects, both the reasoning and the results of the intermediate Court of Appeals. But this meaning is valid only under a procedure wherein we have and exercise the right to hand down a binding opinion on certiorari denials.
In our certiorari conference held on February 1, 1976, we took final action on a total of sixty-six (66) petitions for certiora-ri. We denied the writ and concurred in the results only in eleven (11) cases, or 16⅜ percent. In each of these cases, an ad hoc standard of review made this conclusion feasible, but in 11 cases, appellate judges were left to speculate as to our reasons. This situation, in my view, is intolerable. Appellate judges are entitled to know wherein they have erred.
A typical criminal case wherein we confused the Court of Criminal Appeals and the profession by a failure to indicate, in a brief opinion, the reasons for our denial, is Jackson v. State, 539 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976), wherein we denied the writ without assigning our reasons. This led to an erroneous conclusion on the part of the Court of Criminal Appeals and resulted in the reversal of Adams v. State, supra, in which, for the first time, we specified our reasons for denying the writ in Jackson. A simple one page opinion denying the writ in Jackson would have clarified our position to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and, of course, such an opinion would be binding.
Our procedure for processing certiorari petitions is antiquated. Fairness compels the inclusion that much of the problem is of our own making. The conclusion reached in the other opinions in this case further muddles the problem and stands as an obstacle to our correcting an intolerable situation.
I deplore our practice and dissent from the majority opinion.
The memorandum that precipitated this controversy was prepared for the Court by my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Justice Allison B. Humphreys. I cannot bring myself to believe that this former distinguished professor of law, Circuit Judge, Assistant State Attorney General, State Solicitor General, Judge of the Court of Appeals, and Justice on this Court, whose brilliant opinions have enriched the decisional law of our state, was in error on this point of procedural law.
I would preserve the jurisdiction of this Court, reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this action to the trial court with directions to award homestead.

. McAllester v. McAllester, 217 Tenn. 226, 396 S.W.2d 363 (1965); Cantrell v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 179 Tenn. 180, 163 S.W.2d 824 (1942), and Red Top Cab Co. v. Garside, 155 Tenn. 614, 278 S.W.2d 263 (1927).

. During the calendar year 1976, a total of 634 petitions for the writ of certiorari were filed in this Court. It would be an utter impossibility for the Court to grant all writs and process them, along with direct appeals, with any semblance of efficiency.

.§ 27-821 shows on its face that it is not complete. Omitted therefrom is a portion of the fourth alternative which reads as follows: “(4) Remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings at the direction of the Supreme Court with instructions.” This omitted proviso follows alternative (3) and precedes the words “or certify the additional record.” See § 16-452, T.C.A. for the language governing certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals. This omission does not, however, remove the option since this Court has the inherent right to proceed under this option.