Court Opinion

ID: 9671938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:45:48.290452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:13.174298
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITIONS TO REHEAR
COOPER, Chief Justice.
The parties to this appeal have filed petitions to rehear, voicing concern that factual statements in the opinion of the court are decisive of disputed issues affecting the merits of the case. Each of the parties asks this court to delete or modify statements in the opinion to eliminate such a possibility.
The appeal in this case is from a judgment sustaining a Rule 12 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the third-party defendant-appel-lee, Robert M. Allen. As a consequence, certain factual statements in the opinion are based on allegations of the parties. An iteration of those facts by the court was not intended to be and is not finally deter-*340mmative of disputed factual issues going to the merits of the complaint or the third-party complaint. All that is decided by the court is that the third-party defendant-ap-pellee, Robert M. Allen, had sufficient minimum contacts with Tennessee to confer in personam jurisdiction on the courts of this state under the long-arm statute.
In his petition to rehear, Mr. Allen also reiterates his basic argument that the material facts of the case do not support a determination that his contacts with Tennessee meet the requirements of due process. This issue has been decided contrary to the insistence of Mr. Allen, and a majority of the court sees no basis in the record to justify a change in its decision.
The petitions to rehear are denied, with each petitioner bearing the costs attendant to the filing of his petition.
FONES, BROCK and HARBISON, JJ., concur.
DROWOTA, J., dissents.