Legal Opinion · Dissent

Health & Educational Families Board v. King

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 1984Published

1DissentDrowota, Justice

I respectfully dissent.

The interpretation of these taxing statutes by the majority creates an exemption that is not provided for in the statutes themselves. This interpretation is contrary to the settled rules of statutory construction; specifically, “an exemption from taxation must positively appear in the statute and will not be implied.” Bob Arum Enterprises v. Tenn. Athletic Commission, 633 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tenn.1982). It is not a proper function of this Court to carve out an exemption which is not expressly provided for in the statutes. If the Legislature intended to create an exemption…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American City Bank of Tullahoma v. Western Auto Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1981
  2. Commercial Equities Corp. v. TollettTennessee Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Bob Arum Enterprises, Inc. v. Tennessee Athletic CommissionTennessee Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API