Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lipscomb v. Doe

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 2000Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJanice M. Holder, J.

Lipscomb has failed to show, as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 56-7-1206(b), that the driver who struck her vehicle was unknown. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that Lipscomb is precluded from using the John Doe statute. I would, however, hold that Lipscomb is not required to show that the driver was “unknown” to invoke Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-1-119. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue and remand to the trial court.

The “Unknown” Requirement

The majority correctly states that “[b]e-fore a plaintiff may recover in a ‘John Doe’…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Owens v. Truckstops of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Department of RevenueTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Austin v. Memphis Publishing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Catherine Whittlesey, Deceased, and Stephen E. Whittlesey, Sr. v. Frederick L. ColeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  5. Smith v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API