# Coffman v. City of Pulaski

> Tennessee Supreme Court · September 18, 1967 · 220 Tenn. 642

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661039

## Case

- **Full name:** John Edward Coffman, Defendant in Error. v. City of Pulaski, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 1967
- **Citations:** 220 Tenn. 642; 24 McCanless 642; 422 S.W.2d 429; 1967 Tenn. LEXIS 447
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Humphreys
- **Judges:** Humphreys, Burnett, Dyer, Chattin, Cre-Son
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9661039

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating general rule of immunity

## Opinion text

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Me. Justice Humphreys.
'■' A petition to rehear has been filed, reemphasizing the sincerely entertained and strongly argued contention of plaintiff-in-error that this Court should change the rule with respect to municipal non-liability for police action, without regard for the fact the nile has existed for more than a hundred years and is predicated upon a construction of our State Constitution by such justices as Green and Lurton. And without regard for the obvious intention of the General Assembly of Tennessee to deal with this subject, as evidenced by its enactment of Chapter 374 of the Public Acts of 1967.
While we respect the reasoning on which plaintiff-in-error’s contention is based, and concede that the petition to .rehear presents strong arguments in support of this contention, the Court is still of the opinion expressed, so the petition to rehear is denied. . .
Burnett, Chief Justice, and Dyer, Chattin and Cre-son, Justices, concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661039. Public record. Not legal advice.