Newton v. Cox
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
We granted this application to determine whether the Medical Malpractice Claims Act, which regulates contingent attorney fee contracts, establishes a cause of action for its violation. 1 A second question is whether the Act violates the United States or Tennessee Constitutions. The Court of Appeals held that the statute is directed to the judiciary and, therefore, no cause of action is available against an attorney for its violation. As a result, they did not reach the constitutional issues. We have determined that the statute does establish á cause of action for its…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by56 opinions
- Riggs v. BursonTennessee Supreme Court · 1997
- State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom, a/k/a Otis SmithTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
- Howell v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. MallardTennessee Supreme Court · 2001
- Gordon v. Greenview Hospital, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2009
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.