Pairamore v. Pairamore
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHenry, Justice
I
Concurring
I fully concur in so much of the majority opinion as holds that prior decisional law 1 to the effect that a case is “not now and has never been before this Court” unless the writ of certiorari is granted, is “completely erroneous”.
There is no escape from the conclusion that on the instant of the filing of a petition for the writ of certiorari, the Court acquires a limited or preliminary or inchoate jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction vests for the purpose of enabling the Court to determine the merit of the application for review by writ of certiorari. Without this limited jurisdiction…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Barger v. BrockTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
- Watts v. Putnam CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
- Bloodworth v. Stuart Ex Rel. StuartTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
- Pass v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1944
- Adams v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.