ÿWPC­ xyûëyÆ\U ̆”m®ñ ªGb/¹Gj¦ŒÀͼ‡¾¿Ê˜K¬DMâY²l_¢ÍP?Y²é)ô ñ‚ºÜß̮ǥ3tËì÷3ÆD‰]/GFl¢hÊýÑ3 4ûþ5dj4ï4Øl )Ù8ßãíøŽ<¾È½k4¨IŠáy~ƒï¿G€èKeh!‰ci‹¦ G¸uÁ‡ë¹ýg¸áѯàe G8}Ìý±EZ$Á„äÏF@Puöh„$^O/ zÐÿÂEVêû%½]a¦½èNNÁ/.pjÊ9b+ ™ë‘]@óù2ÑaïøÖ؉4ק›¥Å²iU %/¸&aI¢Ç]SØl×y,Ý2p™çÃÙ,‚L&À:3{7ħ¦ääbýPW Ï­ÔVÚÀ4Ø£ž01©iñ˜žœ$Œ»Ô?Î$æ¨æhþ>oÜMÑ)QOO–j]ÔùùF¾C L(ÞTù L“Ȫ0xQƒ-Pæç´ïëµÒÕ[ÉZ2as7!x¦0pmÍü+UÕ]gjˆÃÛáiˆé)ái‘öСŸSÜuÿz@ZõOM KÏq”HlŸÔ=žäÏW,½ðiù~î&LV5ú3rgÐŽÜ[^BFŸZX¢Ö*b«fíz3g=–ßd#!xU N™ %ç 0ûíUNè w6 4: N 0]  B• 0@² 0DòN6^ 8D mFFFFFV]U:³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ 0í D5 AQ:Æ‹ 0Q 0Di˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(ÓŒ $¡¡Ñ7€1dX»d»Xdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼±g¼»I»ÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular{Z='dd3|x &Ý ƒ J$ÝÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼˜…»XXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X¢X»¼˜…ÔClaimant€also€filed€a€42€U.S.C.Ô‡X6X XXX¢ÔððÔ#†X¢X XX6X¼#Ô€1983€case€in€the€U.S.€District€Court€at€NashvilleÐ ° Ðagainst€Judges€Koch,€Todd€and€Cantrell.€€She€also€sought€review€by€that€Court€of€her€stateÐ ° Ðclaim.€€The€case€was€referred€to€the€Magistrate€Judge,€who€filed€a€Report€finding,€òòinter€aliaóó,Ð  ð Ðà0 ` àà  àà8` ` $` $àð ðThe€claims€asserted€by€the€plaintiff€border€on€the€frivolous.€€It€is€difficult€to€believeÐ à Ðthat€an€attorney€.....€could€file€such€pleadings.ððЀÐ` $` $ Ðà ` àThe€Report€and€Recommendation€of€Dismissal€by€the€Magistrate€Judge€was€adoptedÐ p À Ðand€approved€by€U.S.€District€Judge€Thomas€A.€Higgins€on€April€7,€1999.€€The€case€is€onÐ ` ° Ðappeal€to€the€Sixth€Circuit.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€the€distinction€between€the€State€and€FederalÐ P   Ðcases€is€found€that,€in€the€former,€damages€are€sought€against€the€State€of€Tennessee,€whoseÐ @  Ðliability€is€alleged€to€be€derivative,€for€the€alleged€libelous€statements€in€the€opinion€authoredÐ 0 €  Ðby€Judge€Koch,€while€in€the€latter,€damages€are€sought€against€the€individual€judges€forÐ  p  Ðallegedly€depriving€the€claimant„plaintiff€of€due€process.Ô#†¼˜…»XX¢~#Ô d(ð(3jò$¤¤Ý ƒŒ !ÝÑ8€‡KXXdìdì8ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼I»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"ž1'L ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ LÝ ƒb‘ô"ÝÔ€¼I»XXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼”7»»¼IÔÔ€Ía»¼”7ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X=€XÍaÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€17,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA—Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ð3‘ô$££Ý ƒŒ !ÝÑ8€‡KXXdìdì8ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼I»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ð3‘ô$¢¢Ý ƒŒ !ÝÑ8€‡KXXdìdì8ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼I»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒŒ !ÝÑ8€‡KXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒH°ÒÔ€¼I»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼I»»¼IÔÑ8€‡K»XdìXXdì8Ñò òÓ  ÓòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEóóÐ Ø( ÐÓeÓó óÌÌÌAMANDA€LINN€Ô_ÔCASHIONÔ_Ô,à À à)à  àTENNESSEE€CLAIMS€COMMISSIONÐ " r ÐÔ_Ôßx€`[B2.jz"X`  `€€@ÿERŒ ` 8ttxPŠ4 ð X xßÔ_Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Middle€Division€Claim€99000601)Ð 4 „ Ðà ` àClaimant/Appellantà À à)à  àà p àà È àÐ F – Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ X¨  Ðv.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àAPPEAL€NO.€01A01„9903„BC„00174Ð jº  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà À à)Ð ŽÞ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ  ð  Ðà ` àDefendant/Appelleeà À à)à  àAFFIRMEDÐ ² ÐÌÌAmanda€Linn€Ô_ÔCashionÔ_Ô,€Memphis,€òòpro€seóó€for€Appellant.Ð è8 ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€SolicitorÏGeneral;€and€Martha€A.€Ô_ÔTarletonÔ_Ô,€Senior€Counsel,€Nashville,€for€Appellee.ÌÌÌò òòòà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÔ‡ –ë !»¼IÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†¼I» ! –ë>#ÔÐ T¤ ÐÌó óóóà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ_ÔINMANÔ_Ô,€Senior€JudgeÐ ¤ô Ðò òòòÌÌó óóóÓÓÓ  Óà ` àThis€claim€against€the€State€for€damages€for€alleged€libel€was€filed€with€theÐ Þ". ÐDivision€of€Claims€Administration€on€October€7,€1998,€and€subsequentlyÏtransferred€to€the€Claims€Commission,€whose€decision€was€upheld€by€the€ChanceryÏCourt.€€The€claimant,€a€former€probationary€staff€attorney€for€the€Department€ofÏMental€Health€and€Mental€Retardation,€alleges€that€she€was€libeled€by€an€opinionÏof€the€Court€of€Appeals€styled€òòÔ_ÔCashionÔ_Ô€v.€Robertsonóó,€and€reported€in€955€S.W.2dÐ ’-â(& Ð60€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€which€reviewed€and€affirmed€the€judgment€of€theÏChancery€Court.Ìà ` àThe€State€of€Tennessee€is€alleged€to€have€acted€by€and€through€the€(1)€CourtÏof€Appeals,€(Middle€Section),€as€an€entity,€(2)€Judges€Koch,€Todd,€and€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,Ï(3)€the€members€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Tennessee,€and€(4)€John€Knox€Ô_ÔWalkupÔ_Ô,Ïthe€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee.€€The€Supreme€Court€is€taken€to€task€on€accountÐ j:º52, ÐÔ_Ôof€its€denial€of€the€claimantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Appeals.€€We€deduce€that€the€purported€liability€of€the€AttorneyÏGeneral€is€founded€upon€his€official€function€as€Reporter€of€the€decisions€of€theÐ øH ÐSupreme€Court.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  l Ðà ` àThe€State€filed€a€Rule€12.02(b)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claimÐ @  Ðupon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€The€accompanying€Memorandum€argued€thatÐ d´  Ð(1)€the€claim€is€barred€by€the€Statue€of€Limitations,€(2)€the€claim€is€barred€byÐ ˆØ  Ðabsolute€immunity,€and€(3)€the€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€not€libelous.€Ð ¬ü ÐThe€Claims€Commission€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss,€and€this€appeal€resulted.€Ð Ð  ÐOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€on€the€record€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Rule€13,Ð ôD ÐT.R.A.P.;€òò€Tennóó.€òòFarmers€Ins.€Co.€v.€Amer.€Nat.€Ins.€Co.óó,€840€S.W.2d€933,€(Tenn.Ð h ÐCt.€App.€1992);€òòElliott€v.€Dollar€Gen.€Corpóó.,€475€S.W.€651€(1971).€€TheÐ <Œ Ðpropounded€issues€involved€questions€of€privilege,€immunity,€libel€and€the€statueÐ `° Ðof€limitations.Ð „ Ô Ðà ` àThe€Opinion€complained€of€is€reported,€as€aforesaid,€in€955€S.W.2d€60.€€InÐ ¨"ø Ðlight€of€this€publication,€no€reason€comes€to€mind€to€justify€a€plenary€recitation€ofÐ Ì$  Ðthe€claimantððs€abbreviated€tenure€as€a€probationary€staff€attorney€for€the€TennesseeÐ ð&@"  ÐDepartment€of€Mental€Health€and€Mental€Retardation,€and€the€reasons€for€herÐ )d$" Ðtermination.€€Suffice€to€state€that€she€was€employed€on€July€25,€1994€as€ð ðAttorneyÐ 8+ˆ&$ ÐIIIðð€and€assigned€to€the€Arlington€Development€Center€in€Shelby€County,€whichÐ ° Ðwas€then€the€subject€of€litigation€brought€by€the€U.S.€Department€of€JusticeÐ Ô$ Ðinvolving€the€Departmentððs€alleged€failure€to€provide€a€safe€environment€for€theÐ øH Ðresidents.€€The€claimant€was€critical€of€the€Departmentððs€handling€of€the€federalÐ  l Ðlitigation,€and€did€not€report€for€work€for€several€days.€€On€August€22,€1994€sheÐ @  Ðwas€informed€of€her€termination€because€she€was€not€ð ðfitting€inðð.€€Her€terminationÐ d´  Ðwas€effective€as€of€August€25,€1994.€€On€September€2,€1994€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ððÐ ˆØ  Ð4„5„223,€she€petitioned€the€Department€and€the€Civil€Service€Commission€for€aÐ ¬ü Ðdeclaratory€order€€respecting€her€rights€as€a€probationary€employee€under€T.C.A.ððÐ Ð  Ð8„30„312.€€A€declaratory€ruling€was€denied,€and€the€claimant€thereupon€filed€aÐ ôD Ðcomplaint€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€Court€seeking€a€declaratory€judgmentÐ h Ðof€her€rights€as€a€probationary€employee.€€The€complaint€was€dismissed€for€failureÐ <Œ Ðto€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€The€claimant€appealed€to€theÐ `° ÐCourt€of€Appeals€which€affirmed€the€judgment€in€an€opinion€giving€alleged€rise€toÐ „ Ô Ðthis€action.Ð ¨"ø Ðà ` àThe€claim€is€focused€on€the€following€portion€of€the€opinion€authored€byÐ Ì$  ÐJudge€Koch:Ð ð&@"  ÐÓÓà8 ` àð ðMs.€Cashion€promptly€shared€Mr.€Boydððs€remarks€with€herÐ )d$" Ðimmediate€supervisor.€€During€this€meeting,€Ms.€Cashion€wasÐ &*v%# Ðextremely€critical€of€the€DMHMRððs€handling€of€the€federalÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðinvestigation€and€of€its€standards€and€procedures€at€Arlington.€€SheÐ J,š'% Ðreturned€to€Memphis€following€the€meeting€but€did€not€report€forÐ \-¬(& Ðwork€at€Arlington€for€several€days.€€She€decided€to€work€at€homeÐ n.¾)' Ðbecause€the€Department€had€not€provided€her€with€ððproper€officeÐ €/Ð*( Ðspaceðð€.€.€.€and€because€she€believed€that€her€work€was€on€hold.€.€.€Ms.Ð ’0â+) ÐCashion€met€with€Stanley€Lipford€.€.€.and€Larry€Durvin€.€.€.when€sheÐ ¤1ô,* Ðreturned€to€Arlington€on€August€22,€1994.€€When€Ms.€CashionÐ ¶2.+ Ðvehemently€protested€her€dismissal,€Dr.€Durbin€and€Mr.€LipfordÐ È3/, Ðinstructed€her€to€clear€out€her€desk,€return€her€keys,€and€leave€.€.€.Ð Ú4*0- ÐArlington€.€.€.€by€the€end€of€the€day.ððÐì5<1.` 8"` 8" Ðâ âÐ þ6N2/ ÐÓÓà ` àThe€claimant€exegetes€the€quoted€remarks€as€ð ða€false,€inaccurate,€misleadingÐ ° Ðâ âdepiction€of€the€appellant€as€staff€counsel,ðð€and€ð ð.€.€.€by€describing€claimant€to€beÐ Ô$ Ða€person€who€is€unreliable,€unreasonable,€unstable,€near„hysterical,€temperamental,Ð øH Ðalmost€violent,€over„bearing,€overly€demanding,ðð€she€was€ð ðportrayed€as€a€personÐ  l Ðno€reasonable€employer€in€his€right€mind€would€not€consider€firing€her.ððÐ @  Ðà@BB-Ìàò òIIIó óˆÐ d´  Ðà ` àWith€respect€to€the€allegation€of€libel,€our€perplexity€is€boundless,€becauseÐ ŒÜ  Ðhowever€subjectively€extrapolated,€the€remarks€are€clearly€not€libelous.€€A€citationÐ ° Ðof€authority€for€this€conclusion€is€not€required.€€We€agree€with€the€finding€of€theÐ Ô$ ÐCommission€that€ð ðThis€Commission€cannot€find€anything€at€all€in€this€opinion€thatÐ øH Ðdescribes€the€ððclaimant€to€be€a€person€who€is€unreliable,€unreasonable,€unstable,Ð l Ðnear„hysterical,€temperamental,€almost€violent,€over„bearing,€overly„demandingðð„„Ð @ Ðthis€opinion€just€does€not€say€any€such€thing€and€does€not€leave€any€suchÐ d´ Ðimpression.€€This€opinion€simply€does€not€have€the€ððthe€tendency€to€injureÐ ˆ Ø ÐClaimantððs€professional€reputation€and€to€hold€Claimant€up€to€scorn€and€ridiculeÐ ¬"ü Ð.€.€.ðð€(as€the€addendum€to€the€complaint€says).€€Can€this€claimant€be€complainingÐ Ð$  Ðabout€some€other€opinion,€different€from€the€one€published€at€955€S.W.2d€60?ððÐ ô&D"  Ðà@JJ-Ìàò òIVˆÐ )h$" Ðó óà ` àParenthetically,€at€this€juncture€of€the€case,€we€note€that€the€ClaimsÐ @+&$ ÐCommissioner€considered€the€Stateððs€reply€to€the€claimantððs€opposition€to€theÐ d-´(& Ðmotion€to€dismiss€without€affording€the€claimant€an€opportunity€to€submit€aÐ ˆ/Ø*( Ðresponse.€€Claimant€treats€this€action€as€seriously€impeding€her€presentation.€€AnyÐ ¬1ü,* Ðresponse€would€have€been€necessarily€argumentative,€and€hence€its€absence€wasÐ Ð3 /, Ðnot€„€could€not€„€be€crucial.€€This€issue€is€òòde€minimisóó€and€need€not€be€furtherÐ ô5D1. Ðnoticed.Ð 8h30 Ðà@xx.Ìàò òVˆÐ ° Ðó óà ` àWe€pretermit€the€issue€of€the€Statute€of€Limitations,€which€inferentiallyÐ Ø( Ðrecognizes€the€viability€of€a€claim€had€it€been€timely€presented.€€Our€view€of€thisÐ üL Ðlitigation€is€no€less€critical€than€the€views€of€the€Federal€Court€or€the€TennesseeÐ  p ÐClaims€Commission.€€The€purported€claim€is€utterly€devoid€of€merit.Ð D ” Ðà@JJ-Ìàò òVIó óˆÐ h¸  Ðà ` àWe€now€take€up€the€issue€of€immunity.€€A€claim€for€libel€is€within€theÐ à  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€Claims€Commission€if€the€state€employee€is€determined€to€beÐ ´ Ðacting€within€the€scope€of€employment.€€T.C.A.€ðð€9„8„307(a)(1)(R).€€But€theÐ Ø( Ðdefamatory€matter€constituting€libel€must€first€be€proved,€else€the€issue€is€moot;Ð üL Ðand€we€have€heretofore€summarily€held€that€nothing€in€the€subject€opinion€isÐ  p Ðremotely€libelous.€€Syllogistically,€then,€the€issue€of€immunity€is€moot€andÐ D” Ðunnecessary€to€be€discussed.€€But€the€point€should€in€all€events€be€pressed:€€JudgesÐ h¸ Ðare€absolutely€immune€from€monetary€liability€for€decisions€within€the€scope€ofÐ Œ Ü Ðtheir€official€functions,€and€the€State€is€entitled€to€plead€this€defense€pursuant€toÐ °" ÐT.C.A.€ðð€9„8„307(d)€in€its€capacity€as€employer.Ð Ô$$  Ðà ` àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€particularly€sensitiveÐ ø&H"  Ðduties€of€certain€public€officials€require€that€they€have€absolute€immunity€fromÐ )l$" Ðmoney€damages€for€decisions€within€the€scope€of€their€official€functions.€€òòSee,€e.g.,Ð @+&$ ÐNixon€v.€Fitzgerald,€óó457€U.S.€731,€746,€102€S.Ct.€2690,€2699,€73€L.Ed.2d€349Ð d-´(& Ð(1982)€(President);òò€Butz€v.€Economouóó,€438€U.S.€478,€508,€98€S.Ct.€2894,€2911„12,Ð ˆ/Ø*( Ð57€L.Ed.2d€895€(1978)€(officials€with€functions€similar€to€those€of€judges);€òòStumpÐ ¬1ü,* Ðv.€Sparkmanóó,€435€U.S.€349,€362,€98€S.Ct€1099,€1107,€55€L.Ed.2d€331,€342,òò€rehððgÐ Ð3 /, Ðdeniedóó€436€U.S.€951,€98€S.Ct.€2862,€56€L.Ed.2d€795€(1978),€òòon€remand€SparkmanÐ ô5D1. Ðv.€McFarlinóó,€601€F.2d€261€(7th€Cir.€1979)€(judges);€òòImbler€v.€Pactmanóó,€424€U.S.Ð 8h30 Ð409„23,€96€S.Ct.€984,€990„92,€47€L.Ed.2d€128,€137„40€(1976)€(prosecutors).€€ForÐ ° Ðthese€officials,€the€threat€of€liability€would€inhibit€the€performance€of€their€duties:Ð Ô$ ÐÓÓà8 ` àWhen€officials€are€threatened€with€personal€liability€for€acts€takenÐ øH Ðpursuant€to€their€official€duties,€they€may€well€be€induced€to€act€withÐ  Z Ðan€excess€of€caution€or€otherwise€skew€their€decision€in€ways€thatÐ  l Ðresult€in€less€than€full€fidelity€to€the€objective€and€independent€criteriaÐ . ~ Ðthat€ought€to€guide€their€conduct.€Ð@ ` 8"` 8" ÐÓÓà ` àÌà ` àChief€among€such€public€officials€are€judges.€€It€has€long€been€recognizedÐ vÆ  Ðby€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€that€judicial€acts€enjoy€common€law€immunity.€Ð šê  ÐòòSee€Wilkes€v.€Dinsmanóó,€48€U.S.€89,€12€L.Ed.€618€(1849);€òòRandall€v.€Brighamóó,€74Ð ¾ ÐU.S.€523,€19€L.Ed.€285€(1868).€€In€1872,€the€Supreme€Court€declared€that€it€wasÐ â2 Ða€general€principle€of€the€highest€importance€that€a€judicial€officer€should€be€freeÐ V Ðto€act€upon€his€own€convictions,€without€apprehension€of€personal€consequencesÐ *z Ðto€himself.€€€òòBradley€v.€Fisheróó,€13€Wall€335,€347,€80€U.S.€335,€20€L.Ed.€646Ð Nž Ð(1871).€€For€this€reason,€the€Court€in€òòBradleyóó€held€that€judges€of€generalÐ r Ðjurisdiction€are€not€liable€in€civil€actions€for€their€judicial€acts.€€Tennessee€law€isÐ –!æ Ðin€accord€with€this€approach.€€òòSee€Heath€v.€Corneliusóó,€511€S.W.2d€683€(Tenn.Ð º#  Ð1974).òòÐ Þ%.! Ðà ` àóóJudges€sued€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€have€absolute€immunity€for€acts€withinÐ (R#! Ðthe€judicial€role.òò€€Pierson€v.€Ray€óó386€U.S.€547,€87€S.Ct.€1213,€18€L.Ed.2d€288Ð &*v%# Ð(1967).€€If€the€Courtòò€óóhas€jurisdiction€and€the€judge€is€discharging€his€legal€duties,Ð J,š'% Ðthe€doctrine€of€judicial€immunity€applies.€€òòSee€Kurz€v.€State€of€Michiganóó,€548€F.2dÐ n.¾)' Ð172,€174€(6th€Cir.€1977),òò€cert.€deniedóó,€434€U.S.€972,€98€S.Ct.€526,€54€L.Ed.2d€462,Ð ’0â+) Ðòòrehððg€deniedóó€434€U.S.€1089,€98€S.Ct.€1289,€55€L.Ed.2d€796€(1978).€€òòSee€also€LopezÐ ¶2.+ Ðv.€Vanderwateróó,€620€F.2d€1229,€1233€(7th€Cir.€1980),€òòcert.€dismissedóó,€449€U.S.Ð Ú4*0- Ð1028€(1980);€òòBirch€v.€Mazanderóó,€678€F.2d€754,€755€(8th€Cir.€1982);€òòScott€v.€Hayesóó,Ð þ6N2/ Ð719€F.2d€1562€(11th€Cir.€1983).Ð "9r41 Ðà ` àIn€determining€whether€a€public€official€such€as€a€judge€should€be€entitledÐ ° Ðto€absolute€immunity€in€a€particular€case,€the€Court€has€adopted€a€ð ðfunctionalÐ Ô$ Ðapproach.ðð€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Nixon€v.€Fitsgerald,óó€457€U.S.€at€746„47,€102€S.Ct.€at€2699„Ð øH Ð700,€73€L.Ed.2d€at€349;€òòButz€v.€Economouóó,€438€U.S.€at€508„514,€98€S.Ct.€2911„15,Ð  l Ð57€L.Ed.2d€895;€òòStump€v.€Sparkman,€óó435€U.S.€at€362,€98€S.Ct.€at€1107,€55€L.Ed.2dÐ @  Ð331;€òòImbler€v.€Pachtmanóó,€424€U.S.€at€420„23,€430,€96€S.Ct.€at€990„92,€47€L.Ed.2dÐ d´  Ðat€137„40,€143€(1976).Ð ˆØ  Ðà ` àApplying€the€functional€approach€in€suits€against€judges,€the€cases€ð ðsuggestÐ ¬ü Ðan€intelligible€distinction€between€judicial€acts€and€the€administrative,€legislative,Ð Ð  Ðor€executive€functions€that€judges€may€on€occasion€be€assigned€by€law€toÐ ôD Ðperform.ðð€€òòForrester€v.€White,óó€484€U.S.€at€227,€108€S.Ct.€at€544,€98€L.Ed.2d€at€565.€Ð h ÐJudicial€acts€protected€by€the€doctrine€of€judicial€immunity€include,€for€example,Ð <Œ Ðacting€to€disbar€an€attorney€as€a€sanction€for€contempt€of€court,€or€barring€a€witnessÐ `° Ðfrom€the€courtroom.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Cameron€v.€Seitz,óó€38€F.3d€264,€271€(6th€Cir.€1994);Ð „ Ô ÐòòBradley€v.€Fisher,óó€13€Wall€at€354,€80€U.S.€335,€20€L.Ed.€646.€€AdministrativeÐ ¨"ø Ðdecisions€for€which€absolute€immunity€is€not€extended€include€the€demotion€orÐ Ì$  Ðdischarge€of€court€personnel€such€as€a€probation€officer€or€a€secretary.€€òòSee,€e.g.,Ð ð&@"  ÐForrester,óó€484€U.S.€at€229,€108€S.Ct.€at€545,€98€L.Ed.2d€555;€òòCameronóó,€38€F.3dÐ )d$" Ðat€272„73.€€The€Court€considers€such€unprotected€administrative€decision€as€ð ðactsÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðthat€simply€happen€to€have€been€done€by€judges.ðð€€òòForresteróó€at€227,€108€S.Ct.€atÐ \-¬(& Ð544.òòÐ €/Ð*( Ðà ` àóóIn€applying€the€functional€approach€to€a€specific€case,€a€court€must€make€aÐ ¤1ô,* Ðtwo„part€inquiry€into€the€nature€of€the€defendant€officialððs€function€and€the€effectÐ È3/, Ðof€liability€upon€the€execution€of€that€function.€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòForresterÐ ì5<1. Ðv.€Whiteóó€has€described€the€analysis€under€the€functional€approach:Ð 8`30 ÐÓÓà8 ` àUnder€that€approach,€we€examine€the€nature€of€the€functions€withÐ ° Ðwhich€a€particular€official€or€class€of€officials€has€been€lawfullyÐ Â Ðentrusted,€and€we€seek€to€evaluated€the€effect€that€exposure€toÐ Ô$ Ðparticular€forms€of€liability€would€likely€have€on€the€appropriateÐ æ6 Ðexercise€of€those€functions.ÐøH` 8"` 8" ÐÌÓÓòòForresteróó€at€224,€108€S.Ct.€at€542,€98€L.Ed.€2d€555.Ð  l Ðà ` àIn€the€case€at€Bar,€the€issue€is€whether€the€writing€and€issuing€of€an€opinionÐ @  Ðin€an€appeal€before€the€Tennesssee€Court€of€Appeals€is€a€judicial€function.€€TheÐ d´  Ðanswer€to€that€question€is,€of€course,€ð ðyesðð.€€In€light€of€this,€the€ClaimsÐ ˆØ  ÐCommissioner€properly€dismissed€the€claimants€claim€as€barred€by€judicialÐ ¬ü Ðimmunity.òòÐ Ð  Ðà ` àóóMoreover,€we€hold€that€statements€made€in€the€course€of€judicialÐ ôD Ðproceedings,€including€those€in€pleadings,€that€are€relevant€and€pertinent€to€theÐ h Ðissues€involved,€are€absolutely€privileged€and€cannot€be€a€predicate€for€liability€inÐ <Œ Ðan€action€for€libel.€€òòSee,€Lambdin€Funeral€Service,€Inc.€v.€Griffith,óó€559€S.W.2d€791Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1978).€€Statements€made€in€the€course€of€a€judicial€proceeding€which€areÐ „ Ô Ðrelevant€and€pertinent€are€subject€to€this€absolute€privilege€and€cannot€be€the€basisÐ ¨"ø Ðfor€a€libel€action€even€if€the€statements€are€false,€known€to€be€false,€or€evenÐ Ì$  Ðmalicious.€€òòMyres€v.€Pickering€Firm,€Incorporated,óó€959€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ð&@"  ÐApp.€1997).Ð )d$" Ðà ` àThe€claimant€argues€that€this€absolute€privilege€does€not€apply€to€theÐ 8+ˆ&$ Ðallegedly€defamatory€opinion€because€it€included€ð ðstatements€which€purport€toÐ \-¬(& Ðdescribe€Claimant/Appellant/Plaintiffððs€comments,€appearance,€attitude,€conduct,Ð €/Ð*( Ðbehavior€and€demeanor€while€she€was€an€employee€with€the€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ ¤1ô,* Ðof€Mental€Health€and€Mental€Retardation,€offering€no€references€to€the€Record,€noÐ È3/, Ðâ âattribution€to€sources,€no€characterization€as€to€whether€the€statements€wereÐ ì5<1. Ðcontested€or€uncontested,€supported€or€unsupported.ðð€€She€contends€that€such€aÐ ° Ðdiscussion€was€unnecessary€to€a€resolution€of€the€case.Ð Ô$ Ðâ âà ` àHer€appeal€centered€on€her€dismissal€because€she€was€not€ð ðfitting€in.ðð€€SheÐ øH Ðargues€the€following€statements€were€libelous€and€not€relevant€and€pertinent€to€theÐ  l Ðopinion.€€ð ðMs.€Cashion€promptly€shared€Mr.€Boydððs€remarks€with€her€immediateÐ @  Ðsupervisor.ðð;€ð ðDuring€the€meeting,€Ms.€Cashion€was€extremely€critical€of€theÐ d´  ÐDMHMRððs€handling€of€the€federal€investigation€and€of€its€standards€andÐ ˆØ  Ðprocedures€at€Arlington.ðð;€ð ðShe€returned€to€Memphis€following€the€meeting€but€didÐ ¬ü Ðnot€report€for€work€at€Arlington€for€several€days.ðð;€ð ðShe€decided€to€work€at€homeÐ Ð  Ðbecause€the€Department€had€not€provided€her€with€ððproper€office€spaceðð€.€.€.€andÐ ôD Ðbecause€she€believed€that€her€work€was€on€hold€.€.€.ðð;€ð ðMs.€Cashion€met€withÐ h ÐStanley€Lipford€and€Larry€Durbin€.€.€.€when€she€returned€to€Arlington€on€AugustÐ <Œ Ð22,€1994.ðð;€:When€Ms.€Cashion€vehemently€protested€her€dismissal,€Dr.€DurbinÐ `° Ðand€Mr.€Lipford€instructed€her€to€clear€out€her€desk,€return€her€keys,€and€leave€.€.Ð „ Ô Ð.€Arlington€.€.€.€by€the€end€of€the€day.ðð€€It€is€elementary€that€a€judicial€opinionÐ ¨"ø Ðshould€recite€the€evidence€of€record€or€discussed€in€the€briefs€which€supports€anÐ Ì$  Ðaction€taken.€€ð ðFitting€inðð€required€some€explanation.Ð ð&@"  Ðà ` àWe€need€not€burden€this€matter€further.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed€at€theÐ )d$" Ðcosts€of€the€appellant.Ð 8+ˆ&$ ÐÓÓÓÓà ` àThe€sitting€Judges€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Tennessee€recused€themselvesÐ \-¬(& Ðfrom€a€consideration€of€this€case.€€The€Chief€Justice€of€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ €/Ð*( ÐTennessee,€within€his€statutory€purview,€designated€theòò€óóundersigned€Senior€JudgesÐ ¤1ô,* Ðof€Tennessee€to€hear€this€case.òòÐ È3/, ÐóóÓ…YÓÌà ` àÌâ âÐ 8`30 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à¼â â_______________________________Ð Â Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWilliam€H.€Inman,€Senior€JudgeÐ Ô$ ÐCONCUR:Ð æ6 ÐÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð . ~ ÐJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÐ @  ÐÌÌÌ_______________________________Ð ˆØ  ÐL.€Terry€Lafferty,€Senior€JudgeÐ šê  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à