Jennifer Parks v. Rebecca A. Walker, M.D. - dissenting
Syllabus
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision in this case. I disagree with the majority's holding \that the medical authorizations in this case do not substantially comply with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121.\ I would reverse the Trial Court as I believe the medical authorizations do substantially comply.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a panel of this court is “precluded from overruling” another decision of this court
- reaffirming Mungro’s holding that defendant’s North Carolina convictions for breaking and/or entering constituted predicate violent felonies under ACCA
- adhering to “prior Fourth Circuit precedent that could be read as being in tension with intervening Supreme Court reasoning” where there was “no directly applicable Supreme Court holding”
- “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.”
- “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.