# Dorothy King v. Virginia Betts

> Tennessee Supreme Court · November 18, 2011 · 354 S.W.3d 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522277

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy KING Et Al. v. Virginia BETTS Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 18, 2011
- **Citations:** 354 S.W.3d 691; 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 30; 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 1065
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holder
- **Judges:** Koch, Clark, Lee, Holder, Wade
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522277

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the United States Supreme Court adopted this more flexible approach in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242 (2009)
- discussing “whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his or her acts were unlawful.”

## Opinion text

JANICE M. HOLDER, J.,
concurring.
I concur in Parts I, II, III, V, VI, and VII of the majority opinion. I do not concur in Part IV of the opinion addressing whether federal or state procedural rules should apply to a qualified immunity defense because the issue of whether federal or state procedural law applies is not properly before this Court. See Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162, 171 (Tenn.2009).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9522277. Public record. Not legal advice.