Opinion

Overstreet v. Norman

  • 44 Tenn. App. 343
  • 314 S.W.2d 47
  • 1957 Tenn. App. LEXIS 160
Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Nov 1, 1957
Status
Published
Author
Pelts
On the bench
Felts, Hickerson, Hiekerson, Pelts, Shriven, Shriver
Cited by
26 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.7%

The opinion

On Petition to Rehear

PELTS, J.

Defendant below, plaintiff in error, has filed a petition to rehear complaining of our decision and opinion in these cases. In support of the petition learned counsel make an able and earnest argument, but it is only a reargument of matters already thoroughly argued *352 by them and considered and determined by ns. It points ont no new matter of law or fact overlooked, but only reargues thing’s which counsel say were improperly decided by us.

The office of a petition to rehear is to call attention to the Court of matters overlooked, not to things which counsel supposes were improperly decided after full consideration. A petition which points out no new matter of law or fact overlooked will be denied. Cox v. McCartney, 34 Tenn. App. 235, 243 , 236 S. W. (2d) 736 , and cases there cited.

The petition is denied at the petitioner’s cost.

Hickerson and Shriver, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.