Zimmermann v. Board of Professional Responsibility
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDrowota, Justice
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority opinion that DR 7-107 does not violate the freedom of expression rights secured by the United States and Tennessee Constitutions as applied in the present case. I disagree with the majority’s finding that Respondent, John Zimmerman, was in technical violation of DR 7-107 and that “the discipline imposed [private reprimand] was adequate and appropriate.” I further disagree with the majority when it states: “We are of the opinion his [Zimmerman’s] comments were not very well considered and, in order to avoid the possibility of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chicago Council of Lawyers v. William J. Bauer, and Terence MacCarthy Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- 23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 20, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,029 Wesley P. Bernard v. Gulf Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Kemner v. Monsanto Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
- Hirschkop v. SneadCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of LasswellOregon Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.