# State Ex Rel. Inman v. Brock

> Tennessee Supreme Court · April 10, 1981 · 622 S.W.2d 36

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684585

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee, on Relation of James Edward INMAN, a Resident of Shelby County, Tennessee; And Bench and Bar, a Non-Profit Corporation Organized Under the Tennessee General Corporation Act, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ray L. BROCK, Jr., William H. D. Fones, Robert E. Cooper, Joseph W. Henry, and William J. Harbison, and Thomas H. Shriver, District Attorney General for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Davidson County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 10, 1981
- **Citations:** 622 S.W.2d 36; 1981 Tenn. LEXIS 441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Ward
- **Judges:** Conner, Foster, Tipton, Wharton, Ward
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9684585

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “the legislature has undoubtedly vested the attorney general with a broad discretion to decide when he may lend the assistance of his office to defend public officers.”

## Opinion text

JOYCE M. WARD, Special Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I, regret that I am unable to concur entirely in the majority opinion. In my judgment, issues are discussed unnecessary to the disposition of this case. I would affirm the Chancellor’s holding based solely on the lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter as held in Taylor, supra.
I dissent with the publication of the actions of counsel for plaintiffs. I believe the basis for the reprimand, which I consider necessary, should be briefly summarized, without specificity in the opinion rather than republished in detail. I would refer the case record to the disciplinary board for appropriate action.
I would hold that this appeal is frivolous based upon the record in the face of Taylor, supra, and the history preceding the instant appeal. However, I dissent with the issuance of an injunction against counsel for the plaintiffs. I would tax all unnecessary costs, including costs of impaneling a special supreme court, to plaintiff Bench and Bar, and the officers and directors of Bench and Bar individually, pursuant to T.C.A. § 27-1-122. 1
. Damages for frivolous appeal. — When it appears to any reviewing court that the appeal from any court of record was frivolous or taken solely for delay, the court may, either upon motion of a party or of its own motion, award just damages against the appellant, which may include but need not be limited to, costs, interest on the judgment, and expenses incurred by the appellee as a result of the appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684585. Public record. Not legal advice.