Skip to main content
· 9/26/2019

Bradley Jetmore v. City of Memphis

Syllabus

In this case involving the Tennessee Public Records Act (\TPRA\), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 10-7-101 – 10-7-702 (2012 & Supp. 2019), the petitioner filed a petition alleging that the respondent, the City of Memphis (\the City\), had violated the TPRA by failing to promptly disclose unredacted crash reports for all traffic accidents to which the City's police officers had responded on two specific days in November 2017. The City filed a motion to dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings pending resolution of what it averred would be a determinative issue in a related federal case. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the City's motion to dismiss and motion to stay pending resolution of the federal action. Finding that the City had violated the TPRA by failing to promptly disclose unredacted crash reports for public inspection, the trial court ordered such disclosure however, upon also finding that a substantial legal issue was to be determined, the trial court stayed its disclosure order pending resolution of this appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(d)-(e) (2012). Upon finding that the City's violation of the TPRA had not been willful, the trial court denied the petitioner's request for attorney's fees. The City timely appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, the federal district court in the related case certified the legal question posed by the City for presentation to the Tennessee Supreme Court, but the High Court subsequently entered an order declining certification. By the time of oral arguments before this Court, the parties acknowledged that the sole issue remaining for adjudication in this appeal was the petitioner's request for attorney's fees. We determine that under the version of the TPRA in effect at the time this action was filed, the trial court properly found that the City failed to promptly disclose the public records at issue. We further determine that the City's violation of the TPRA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that the more officers present at a scene, the less threat the assailant poses
  • finding that officers, when responding to a medical emergency, used excessive force when an officer placed a knee in the center of the plaintiff’s back and handcuffed him
  • stating that “in order to recover on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he suffered damages caused by a defendant’s use of such force”
  • “[I]t was clearly established that [Lachance] had a constitutional right to be free from an officer kneeling on his back after he had been restrained.
  • “[I]t was clearly established that [Lachance] had a constitutional right to be free from an officer kneeling on his back after he had been restrained.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.