Skip to main content

State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Larry E. Parrish, P.C. v. The Honorable James B. Cox

Tenn. Ct. App.September 29, 2021No. M2021-00029-COA-R3-CV
Mixed ResultThe Honorable James B. Cox

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Arnold B. Goldin
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Appellant brought a mandamus action in the trial court praying that the court would mandate certain actions related to other litigation involving Appellant. The trial court dismissed the action. We affirm the court's dismissal and, finding the appeal to be frivolous pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122, remand the case for a determination of Appellees' damages incurred as a result of the appeal.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Larry E. Parrish, who works as an attorney, filed a legal action called a "mandamus" against Judge James B. Cox. Essentially, Parrish was asking a court to force the judge to take certain actions related to separate ongoing litigation that Parrish was involved in. This type of legal request is used when someone believes a public official isn't doing their required duties. **What the Court Decided** The trial court threw out Parrish's case, and the appeals court agreed with that decision. The appeals court went further, ruling that Parrish's appeal was "frivolous" - meaning it had no reasonable legal basis. As punishment for filing a baseless appeal, the court ordered that the case be sent back to determine how much money Parrish must pay to cover the other party's legal costs. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case serves as a warning about filing frivolous lawsuits in employment disputes. While workers have the right to challenge unfair treatment in court, they should ensure their claims have solid legal grounds. Filing baseless lawsuits can backfire, potentially requiring you to pay the other side's attorney fees and court costs, making an already difficult situation much worse financially.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

MATTHEW HAWN v. SULLIVAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Tenn. Ct. App.May 2026
Mixed Result
SIGNAL PUMP, LLC D/B/A SIGNAL POWER v. ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.
Tenn. Ct. App.Apr 2026
Defendant Win
Cedar Nordbye v. University of Memphis
Tenn. Ct. App.Mar 2026
Defendant Win
HAMILTON COUNTY v. TAX YEAR 2010 DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS
Tenn. Ct. App.Mar 2026
Defendant Win
MONA WORD v. KNOX COUNTY
Tenn. Ct. App.Feb 2026

Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. Plaintiff appeals, challenging the discovery sanction, the trial court's conclusion under the Tennessee Human Rights Act that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply, the trial court's conclusion that the Clerk was not individually liable, and the award of attorney's fees against the Plaintiff and her attorney. We affirm.

Mixed Result
Read Full OpinionMore The Honorable James B. Cox RulingsAll Rulings

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.

Check Your RightsLearn the Basics

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.