Court Opinion

ID: 9769190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:37:25.542006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:57.400646
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing asserting three grounds for the reconsideration of our April 18, 1990 opinion. First, the appellant asserts that our opinion was based upon laws that were not in effect when the case was tried. Second, she asserts that we held that she could not rely on the “ill conduct” or “provocation” defense. Third, she argues that our opinion is contrary to Cook v. Cook, Shelby Law, 1989 WL 76305 (Tenn.Ct.App. 7-14-89).1
*606The appellant’s motion does not raise any new matter not already considered and is not well taken. Our opinion rests upon legal principles that were commonly known to the bench and bar when this case was tried. Rather than holding that the appellant could not assert a provocation defense, we agreed with the trial court’s finding that the appellee’s conduct prior to March 31, 1988 did not warrant the appellant’s threatening to kill him with a loaded pistol. Finally, we did not deem the Western Section’s decision in Cook v. Cook to be controlling in this case since the appellant voluntarily dismissed her complaint for divorce from bed and board.
It is, therefore, ordered that the petition for rehearing be denied at cost to the appellant.
/s/ Ben H. Cantrell BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
/s/ William C. Koch, Jr. WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
/s/ Joe C. Loser, Jr. JOE C. LOSER, JR. SPECIAL JUDGE

. In addition to a rehearing, the appellant also seeks the withdrawal of our opinion and a hearing en banc in accordance with this Court’s internal operating procedures. This request can only be decided by a majority of the judges of the Middle Section. Accordingly, our disposition of the petition for rehearing should not be viewed as disposing of the appellant’s request for an en banc hearing.