IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
October 2, 1996
MICHAEL SCOTT EVANS, ) Cecil W. Crowson
) Appellate Court Clerk
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9511-JV-00508
v. )
) Davidson Juvenile
KAREN MARIE BISSON STEELMAN, ) No. 9419-13267
)
Defendant/Appellee. )
CONCURRING OPINION
I fully concur in Judge Cantrell's opinion. I have read
with much interest Judge Koch's dissenting opinion. The matters
set forth in the dissenting opinion might make good public policy,
but the setting of public policy is not a matter for this court or
any court in Tennessee.
"[It is generally recognized that the public policy
of a State is to be found in its Constitution and
statutes, and] only in the absence of any
declaration in [Constitution and statutes] may
[public policy] be determined from judicial
decisions. [In order to ascertain the public
policy of a State in respect to any matter, the
acts of the legislative department should be looked
to, because a legislative act, if constitutional,
declares in terms the policy of the State, and is
final so far as the courts are concerned.] All
questions of policy are for the legislature, and
not for the courts . . . [Hence the courts are not
at liberty to declare a law void as in violation of
public policy.] Where courts intrude into their
decrees their opinion on questions of public
policy, they in effect constitute the judicial
tribunal as law making bodies in usurpation of the
powers of the legislature."
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 902-03 (Tenn.
1992)(quoting Cavender v. Hewitt, 145 Tenn. 471, 475-76, 239 S.W.
767, 768 (1921))(alterations in original).
"This court can know nothing of public policy
except from the Constitution and the laws, and the
course of administration and decision. It has no
legislative powers. It cannot amend or modify any
legislative acts. It cannot examine questions as
expedient or inexpedient, as politic or impolitic.
Considerations of that sort must, in general, be
addressed to the Legislature. Questions of policy
determined there are concluded here.["]
"There are cases, it is true, in which arguments
drawn from public policy must have large influence;
but these are cases in which the course of
legislation and administration does not leave any
doubt upon the question what the public policy is,
and in which what would otherwise be obscure or a
doubtful interpretation, may be cleared and
resolved by reference to what is already received
and established.["]
Nashville Railway & Light Co. v. Lawson, 144 Tenn. 78, 91, 229 S.W.
741, 744 (Tenn. 1921)(quoting License Tax Case, 5 Wall. 462, 469,
18 L. Ed. 497, 500 (1867)).
The statue in this case is clear and constitutional.
Therefore, I concur in Judge Cantrell's well-reasoned opinion.
________________________________
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, J.
Michael Scott Evans v. Karen Marie Bisson Steelman - Concurring
Combined Opinion