Tennessee Supreme Court· 2/19/2004
Doe v. Doe
Citations
- 127 S.W.3d 728
- 2004 Tenn. LEXIS 128
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that because subpoenas are available, “guarantee of confidentiality has little additional effect”
- concluding that because subpoenas are available, \guarantee of confidentiality has little additional effect\
- “Applying the principles of these cases, we conclude that to the extent a legitimate interest in reputation is at stake in requiring confidentiality ... such interest should not be recognized as compelling.”
- allowing “proposed amendment” to serve as interim rule until formal adoption of amended rule
- “[A] confidentiality provision precluding the disclosure of both frivolous and non-frivolous complaints is not sufficiently narrowly tailored____”
- \[A] confidentiality provision precluding the disclosure of both frivolous and non-frivolous complaints is not sufficiently narrowly tailored....\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: William M. Barker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Kenneth Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLCSixth Circuit· 2013-08-28· cited 79×
- Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P.Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2007-05-31· cited 53×
- R.M. v. Supreme Court of New JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey· 2005-10-19· cited 26×
- In Re WarnerSupreme Court of Louisiana· 2009-04-17· cited 10×
- Guttman v. WidmanTenth Circuit· 2006-06-28· cited 4×
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 762Supreme Court of Iowa· 2013-11-08· cited 3×
- State of Tennessee v. Letalvis Cobbins In Re: Gary ChristianCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 2015-02-04
- State of Tennessee v. Hassan Falah Al Mutory - Concurring in part and Dissenting in partTennessee Supreme Court· 2019-08-07
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court· 1992-06-22· cited 2,052×
- Boos v. BarrySupreme Court· 1988-03-22· cited 1,104×
- Bigelow v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1975-06-16· cited 767×
- Burson v. FreemanSupreme Court· 1992-05-26· cited 765×
- Walker v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 621×
- Landmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1978-05-01· cited 585×
- Butterworth v. SmithSupreme Court· 1990-03-21· cited 145×
- Doe v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court· 2003-05-08· cited 143×
- Leech v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1979-05-07· cited 87×
- In re BrooksSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1996-05-08· cited 26×
- Kamasinski v. Judicial Review CouncilSecond Circuit· 1994-12-29· cited 19×
- Doe v. Supreme Court of FloridaS.D. Florida· 1990-03-13· cited 15×
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.