Williamson County Broadcasting Co. v. Williamson County Bd. of Ed.

Decision Date11 April 1977
PartiesWILLIAMSON COUNTY BROADCASTING COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Respondents. 549 S.W.2d 371
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Frank C. Ingraham, Ingraham, Young & Corbett, Nashville, for petitioners.

Alfred H. Knight, III, Willis & Knight, Nashville, for respondents.

OPINION

HENRY, Justice.

This civil action, arising under the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, commonly known as the "Sunshine Law", as incorporated in Sec. 8-4401, et seq., T.C.A., devolves into a consideration and construction of Rule 56, Tenn.R.Civ.P.

Specifically, the question we address is whether a plaintiff, whose motion for summary judgment is overruled, may appeal. In responding in the negative, we look to the pleadings.

I.

The Williamson County Broadcasting Company, owner and operator of Radio Station W.A.G.G. in Franklin, joined by its news director and the Middle Tennessee Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, a society of professional journalists, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court at Franklin against The Williamson County Board of Education and certain named individuals constituting its membership. The thrust of the complaint was that the Board had conducted two secret meetings in violation of the Sunshine Law. The principal relief sought was (1) a declaration that action taken at these meetings be declared void and (2) that the defendants be permanently enjoined from further violations of the Act.

The defendants answered, asserting in substance, that these were informal assemblages not covered by the act and affirmatively pleading that they had not violated the Sunshine Law.

About five months after the answer was filed, but before any proceedings were conducted, plaintiffs moved for a summary judgment, supported by depositions, alleging that "there are no material issues of fact". Plaintiffs' motion is premised upon the insistence that both meetings were covered by the Sunshine Law.

The technical record contains a notice from counsel for plaintiffs that the motion for summary judgment would be heard on July 11, 1975. We assume it was heard on that date, but the record is silent on this point.

On July 28, 1975 the Chancellor filed his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Inter alia the Chancellor held that "there is no genuine issue of material fact," only questions of law. These questions of law were decided adversely to the Broadcasting Company. The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Findings and Conclusions end with the following:

If plaintiffs elect to stand upon their motion for summary judgment, as indicated by plaintiffs' counsel in the course of argument, the complaint in this case will be dismissed at plaintiffs' cost. (Emphasis supplied).

On August 2, 1975, plaintiffs moved to amend the findings. This is a seven (7) page document, taking issue with the Chancellor as to certain specified findings and shows conclusively that there were unresolved and genuine issues of material facts.

The same day the defendants moved for a summary judgment, based upon the pleadings, the same depositions and the Chancellor's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Court did not act upon this motion.

On September 9, 1977 the Chancellor overruled plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Findings.

On 15 October 1977, a "decree" was entered, incorporating the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This decree recites that "(t)he plaintiff (has) finally elected . . . to stand on its motion for Summary Judgment . . ." and dismisses the action. An appeal ensued and the Court of Appeals decided the controversy on its merits.

II.

This case is simply not ripe for appellate review.

Rule 56.03, Tenn.R.Civ.P. provides in pertinent part:

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Emphasis supplied).

Thus the rule contains two imperatives, i. e. (1) a finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact and (2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The decree shows only that the first criterion has been met. Clearly, the record, in its present posture, shows that the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, since the Chancellor held to the contrary.

It is unfortunate that defendants' motion for summary judgment was not filed sooner, or that the court did not act upon it. Had that motion been sustained we would be dealing with a final judgment.

There is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Hca, Inc. v. American Protection Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 2005
    ...of a motion for summary judgment indicates is that the case should proceed further. See Williamson County Broadcasting Co. v. Williamson County Bd. of Education, 549 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn.1977). Whether it will ever go to a jury or whether it will be disposed of on directed verdict pursuant to R......
  • Byrd v. Hall
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 19 Enero 1993
    ...See, e.g., Downen, 811 S.W.2d at 542; Jones v. Home Indem. Ins. Co., 651 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tenn.1983); Williamson Cty. Broadcasting v. W. Cty. Bd. of Ed., 549 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tenn.1977); Taylor, 573 S.W.2d at 480; Lucas Brothers v. Cudahy Co., 533 S.W.2d 313, 316 (Tenn.App.1975). Once it is......
  • Franklin Distributing Co., Inc. v. Crush Intern. (U.S.A.), Inc.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 10 Octubre 1986
    ...has been overruled, he has simply lost a preliminary skirmish and must proceed to trial." Williamson County Broadcasting Co. v. Williamson County Board of Education, 549 S.W.2d 371, 372 (1977). While the Tennessee courts have not addressed Crush's argument in the context of an interlocutory......
  • Burks v. Elevation Outdoor Advertising, LLC
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 24 Julio 2006
    ...undisputed facts." Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Tenn.1997) (citations omitted); see also Williamson County Broad. Co. v. Williamson County Bd. of Educ., 549 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tenn.1977). "[T]he party seeking summary judgment must carry the burden of persuading the court that no genuin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT