Legal Opinion
Doe v. Doe
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided February 19, 2004PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · BarkerWilliam M. Barker, J.
FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., and E. RILEY ANDERSON, ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., and JANICE M. HOLDER, JJ., joined.
The petitioner, an attorney identified as John Doe, filed a petition for contempt alleging violations by the respondent, an attorney identified as Jane Doe, of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court directed the parties to address as a threshold matter the constitutionality of Rule 9, section 25. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Attorney General and amicus curiae, and analyzing the…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Boos v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Bigelow v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Burson v. FreemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Walker v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by9 opinions
- Kenneth Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- R.M. v. Supreme Court of New JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
- In Re WarnerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2009
- Guttman v. WidmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 762Supreme Court of Iowa · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.