# Badgett v. Rogers

> Tennessee Supreme Court · December 6, 1968 · 222 Tenn. 374

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767908

## Case

- **Full name:** William E. Badgett, Appellant, v. Leonard R. Rogers and Edward C. Snoddy, Appellees
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 6, 1968
- **Citations:** 222 Tenn. 374; 26 McCanless 374; 436 S.W.2d 292; 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 438
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Creson
- **Judges:** Creson, Burnett, Chiee, Dyes, Chatttn, Humphreys, Dyer, Chattin
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9767908

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that taxpayers may proceed with a lawsuit alleging an illegal use of public funds even though they are unable to establish an injury different from that sustained by the public at large

## Opinion text

Opinion on Petition to Rehear.
MR. Justice Creson.
A petition to rehear has been, filed in this cause, the thrust of which is that the Court overlooked the facts (1) that the case was before the Court upon a demurrer to the original bill, and (2) that certain allegations of the bill alleged “facts” showing the iniquity or even worse, of the conduct of the defendants.
It is true that the ease is here seeking review of a judgment of the Knox County Chancery Court sustaining a demurrer. In the original opinion, we did not agree with *383 the ground upon which the Chancellor based his decision, but did so, fully, with the result reached by him.
Counsel should recall that a large per cent of cases which come to this Court on direct appeal are those on demurrer; and the Court is fully familiar with the rules respecting review of such a case.
We feel it is entirely clear in the original opinion that the things this petition argues were overlooked were precisely the things that were considered in reaching the conclusion stated in the original opinion.
The petition to rehear is denied.
Burnett, Chief Justice, and Dyer, Chattin and HumphReys, Justices, concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767908. Public record. Not legal advice.