Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 2010No. M2009-00330-SC-R23-CQPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This Court has accepted three questions certified by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in accordance with Tenn. S.Ct. R. 23 that require us to determine how existing Tennessee law addresses certain questions involving the cremation of human remains. I regret that I am able to concur with the Court’s answers to only the second and third questions. I cannot concur with the Court’s answer to the first question because it overlooks that, by virtue of the definitive actions of the Tennessee…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Houghton v. Aramark Educational Resources, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Larson v. ChaseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  3. Lavin v. JordonTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Smith v. GoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Cardwell v. BechtolTennessee Supreme Court · 1987

30 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