Skip to main content

Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State of Tennessee (Concurring)

Tenn.December 20, 2024No. W2021-00999-SC-R11-CV
UnresolvableState of Tennessee

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Justice Holly Kirby
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Concurring opinion on appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Concurring opinion addressing the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, specifically Mr. Smith's deposition testimony regarding contract interpretation and Pharma's decision-making authority over conference feasibility.

Excerpt

I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately only to elaborate on the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, versus how it may be used. The extrinsic evidence at issue in this case is Mr. Smith's deposition testimony. During the deposition, the State's counsel asked Mr. Smith whether it was his "understanding that it was within Pharma's ability and Pharma's sole determination to decide what conferences were feasible to produce?" Mr. Smith responded, "Yes." Discussing this evidence, the majority opinion says that evidence of "a party's subjective views on the contract's meaning . . . should not be considered."

Similar Rulings

Jabriel Linzy v. State of Tennessee
TENNCRIMAPPJan 2026

In 2015, a Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jabriel Linzy, of first-degree murder,attempted first-degree murder, and employment of a firearm during the commission of adangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the first degree murderconviction, fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and six years forthe conviction of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Thetrial court ordered that the two shorter sentences be served consecutively to each other butconcurrently with the life sentence. The Petitioner appealed his convictions, and this courtaffirmed. State v. Linzy, No. E2016-01052-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 3575871, at 1 (Tenn.Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2017). The Petitioner fileda petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court grantedpost-conviction relief, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object toinadmissible social media evidence in conjunction with not eliciting testimony about thePetitioner's prior conflict with the victim and that trial counsel's performance prejudicedthe Petitioner. On appeal, the State contends that the post-conviction court erred becausetrial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision when failing to object to the social mediaevidence and because the Petitioner cannot show that trial counsel's performanceprejudiced him. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

Plaintiff Win
Robert Lee Adams, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
TENNCRIMAPPDec 2025
Unresolvable
Quadarius Devonta Bufford v. State of Tennessee
TENNCRIMAPPNov 2025
Unresolvable
Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
6th CircuitApr 2014
Mixed Result
Village of Posen, Illinois v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council
Ill. App. Ct.Oct 2014
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.