Supreme Court Opinions

Format: 11/23/2014
Format: 11/23/2014
Christopher v. Sockwell
01S01-9408-CV-00090
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/28/96
02S01-9601-CV-00134
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
Supreme Court 05/20/96
02S01-9508-CV-00069
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: James M. Tharpe
Supreme Court 05/20/96
01S01-9507-CC-00104
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: James E. Walton
Supreme Court 05/20/96
03S01-9508-CC-00096
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9508-CC-00096
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9410-CR-00106
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9502-CV-00015
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9502-CH-00018
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9501-CH-00008
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/13/96
03S01-9410-CR-00106
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/13/96
01S01-9503-CC-00035
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Supreme Court 05/13/96
Fannie Tuggle and Hoyt Tuggle v. Allright Parking Systems, Inc.
02-S-01-9501-CV-00009
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

We granted this appeal to determine whether a party with a derivative claim - loss of consortium - is entitled to challenges under the peremptory jury challenge statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-3-105.

We conclude that the clear and unambiguous language of the jury challenge statute provides additional peremptory challenges to a party with a derivative claim,1 and that a new trial is required because the denial of that statutory right constitutes prejudice to the judicial process. In the interest of judicial economy, since a new trial is required, we have also decided that under comparative fault principles, the recovery of a spouse claiming loss of consortium will be reduced in proportion to or barred by the fault of the physically injured spouse. We, therefore, affirm the Court of  Appeals’ decision reversing and remanding for a new trial.

Shelby County Supreme Court 05/06/96