Ballard v. Herzke
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Chief Justice.
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the Chancery Court abused its discretion by modifying a protective order to allow access to discovery materials previously protected by the order and by allowing media intervention. The Court of Appeals reversed the Chancery Court, finding an abuse of discretion and reinstated the protective order which denied access to the discovery materials.
We conclude that the Chancery Court did not abuse its discretion either by modifying the protective order or by allowing intervention. The judgment of the Court of Appeals…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- John A. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg Harold A. Bentzoni Kathryn Mikels John W. Osborne, II William Reber Mary Jean Knapik Maryann West Kowalshyn Richard F. Osswald Carl R. Rogers v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. T/a Pocono Record, Ronald F. Bouchard Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers Association, Intervenors/appellantsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by200 opinions
- Lee Medical, Inc. v. Paula BeecherTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. ShirleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. MooreTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
- State v. ShuckTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
195 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.