ÿWPCð' …# V %a 0 …gU>ìU:* w@d 4¤ ¸ U:Ç b 0å 0Dî U:2 l 0Jt 0T¾ 0¡ 0^³ 0h 0ry 0|ë 0†g 0í 1u} 0dòU*VU6€ D3¶B)éDC 0@U AM•%âw~U>˜ BÖXó?KÑŠŸ[v~úvÓx AOK&Æš& 0D`' D/¤' BÓ'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0  X(]Ir$¡¡Ô€X5XXJXÔÔ€XIõXXX5ÔÔ€XIõXXAXIõÔ<@ˆÐ9Z &Courier Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular IJDKLM‘eNQDRDSÓ€]DÒ uYU!3|x],†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(•(2xæ$¤¤Ý ƒIr!ÝÔ€XbRXX XÔÔ€XšXXXbRÔÔ€XšXXXšÔÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(y3îÅ$©©Ý ƒIr!ÝÔ€XbRXX XÔÔ€XšXXXbRÔÔ€XšXXXšÔÝ  Ý2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Courier New3333'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌOctober€23,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó mÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ôÔòòState€ex€rel.€Hooker€v.€Thompsonóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1996)(No.€01S01„9605„CH„00106)(Tenn.,€filed€Oct.€2,€1996,€Nashville).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„48„109€(1993€Repl.€and€1996€Supp.);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„1„301Ï(1994€Repl.€and€1996€Supp.).€€These€general€provisions€indicate€that€a€vacancy€in€the€Supreme€Court€shallÏbe€filled€by€a€resident€of€"the€grand€division€of€the€state€in€which€the€vacancy€occurs."Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€(ôÔThis€provision€reads:€€"The€judicial€selection€commission,€in€compiling€its€list€of€nominees€for€aÏsupreme€court€position,€shall€assure€that€the€requirements€of€article€VI,€section€2,€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€are€satisfied.ðð€€Article€VI,€section€2€provides,€in€relevant€part,€that€"not€more€than€two€justicesÏ[shall]€reside€in€each€grand€division."Ì 5Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„101,€et€seq.€(1994€Repl.€&€1996€Supp.).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔ€Moreover,€as€the€Chancellor€noted,€there€is€a€legal€distinction€between€òòobiteróó€òòdictumóó€and€òòjudicialóóÏòòdictumóó.€€òòJudicial€dictumóó€refers€to€pronouncements€in€an€opinion€that€are€long€regarded€by€the€bench€and€barÏas€establishing€the€rule€of€law.€€òòRose€v.€Blewettóó,€202€Tenn.€at€161„62,€303€S.W.2d€at€712„13.€€AlthoughÏsuch€language€may€not€be€necessary€to€the€decision€in€a€case,€òòjudicialóó€òòdictumóó€is€controlling€as€precedent.€€òòIdóó.€Ì •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔ€The€issue€of€the€constitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€8„48„109€and€17„1„301(b)€has€not€beenÏraised€by€the€parties,€and€we€do€not€reach€that€issue€in€this€Opinion.ÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ ÑÑ7€šXXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óóóÌJANICE€HOLDER,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà à)€€€€€€ò ò€Filed:€€October€23,€1996ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€DAVIDSON€CHANCERYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌTENNESSEE€JUDICIAL€à àà àà à)ÌSELECTION€COMMISSIONà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€ELLEN€HOBBS€LYLE,Ìand€GEORGE€T.€LEWIS,€III,€ESQ.,à à)à à€€€€€€€€€€CHANCELLORÌIn€his€Official€Capacity€as€Chairpersonà à)Ìof€the€Tennessee€Judicial€Selectionà à)ÌCommission,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€NO.€€01S01„9610„CH„00211Ìà àà àDefendants/Appellants.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌPaul€C.€Ney,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àJef€FeibelmanÌGregory€Mitchellà àà àà àà àà àSusan€ClarkÌDORAMUS€&€TRAUGERà àà àà àà àBURCH,€PORTER€&€JOHNSONÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TennesseeÌÌÙ€€ÙßL€./,;+'h|Ýéf` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€A.€DayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBRANHAM€&€DAYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€(„Ôò òà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€(XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.ÇÓÓ›à àWe€granted€this€expedited€appeal€to€determine€a€question€of€unusual€publicÏimportance€„€whether€the€issue€considered€in€part€VI€of€the€Special€Supreme€CourtððsÏOctober€2,€1996€opinion× ƒ0 ××  ×,€the€residency€requirements€for€the€current€Supreme€CourtÏvacancy,€was€before€that€Court€for€determination.€€That€question€is€presented€in€thisÏcase.€€Consequently,€if€the€Special€Supreme€Court€did€not€have€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€of€that€issue,€it€must€be€resolved€in€this€proceeding.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€release€of€the€Special€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion,€the€TennesseeÏAttorney€General€had€issued€an€opinion€on€September€9,€1996,€which€concluded€thatÏresidents€of€both€the€Eastern€and€Western€Grand€Division€may€apply€to€the€JudicialÏSelection€Commission€(ð ðthe€Commissionðð)€to€fill€the€present€vacancy€on€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€€Based€on€the€Attorney€Generalððs€opinion,€the€Commission€opened€theÏapplication€process€under€the€Tennessee€Plan€to€residents€of€both€grand€divisions.€€ÌÌà àThe€Special€Supreme€Court€in€part€VI€of€its€opinion€considered€certain€post„judgment€events€and€acted€on€its€own€motion€to€rule€that€the€Tennessee€Plan€residencyÏrequirements€do€not€apply€under€the€facts€of€this€case€and€that€other€statutes€require€thatÏthe€current€vacancy€be€filled€by€a€resident€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€DavidsonÍCounty€Chancery€Court,€Part€III,€held€that€pronouncement€by€the€Special€Supreme€CourtÏis€"òòobiteróó€òòdictumóó"€and€"not€binding."€€The€Chancellor€then€held€that€the€residencyÏrequirement€for€the€vacancy€is€controlled€by€the€Tennessee€Plan,€specifically,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð17„4„109(f)€Ô€2Ôœ× ƒ4 ××  ×›Ô€(Ô,€and€that€residents€of€both€the€Eastern€and€Western€GrandÏDivisions€of€Tennessee€may€apply€for€the€vacancy.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€Special€Supreme€Courtððs€ruling€regarding€the€residencyÏrequirements€for€the€present€vacancy€was€not€before€that€Court€for€determination.€€€WeÏalso€conclude€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð17„4„109(f)€controls€the€residency€requirements€forÏthis€vacancy€as€defined€by€Article€VI,€section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÏAccordingly,€because€two€Justices€presently€reside€in€the€Middle€Grand€Division,€aÏresident€of€either€the€Eastern€or€Western€Grand€Divisions€of€Tennessee€may€apply€forÏthe€vacancy.€€€ÌÌà àWe€therefore€affirm€the€result€reached€by€the€Chancellor€but€for€the€separateÏreasons€articulated€below.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àThis€case€arises€from€a€complaint€filed€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€CourtÏby€the€plaintiff,€Judge€Janice€Holder,€in€which€she€sought€injunctive€and€declaratoryÏrelief€with€respect€to€her€application€to€be€nominated€for€the€current€vacancy€on€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€The€plaintiff€asserted€that€she€was€a€resident€of€the€WesternÏGrand€Division€of€the€state€and€that€she€met€the€qualifications€to€apply€for€the€position.€ÏThe€complaint€alleged€that€the€Commission€had€erroneously€limited€its€consideration€toÏapplicants€who€were€residents€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division.€ÌÌà àAt€the€Chancery€Court€hearing,€the€Commission€took€a€neutral€position,€statingÏthat€it€was€following€the€advice€of€the€State€Attorney€General,€who€had€stated€that€theÏCommission€should€act€in€accordance€with€the€Special€Supreme€Courtððs€ruling€that€theÏvacancy€must€be€filled€by€a€resident€of€the€Eastern€Grand€œDivision.›€ÌÌà àThe€parties€stipulated€that€the€plaintiffððs€lawsuit€arose€from€the€following€events.€ÏOn€May€15,€1996,€John€Jay€Hooker€filed€a€Petition€for€Writ€of€Mandamus€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€for€Davidson€County€seeking€to€establish€his€right€to€be€a€candidate€in€a€contestedÏelection€on€August€1,€1996,€for€the€Supreme€Court€seat€then€held€by€Justice€PennyÏWhite.€€Hookerððs€petition€was€followed€by€a€similar€petition€filed€by€Lewis€Laska.€€AfterÏfailing€to€achieve€favorable€results€in€the€trial€court,€Hooker€and€Laska€appealed.€ÏBecause€the€cases€attacked€the€constitutionality€of€the€statutes€governing€the€manner€inÏwhich€Supreme€Court€Justices€are€elected,€the€members€of€this€Court€disqualifiedÏthemselves€from€hearing€the€matter€pursuant€to€Article€VI,€section€11€of€the€TennesseeÍConstitution,€and€certified€that€fact€to€the€Governor.€€Thereafter,€the€Governor€speciallyÏcommissioned€five€(5)€licensed€attorneys€to€serve€as€special€justices€of€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€for€the€ð ðtrial€and€determinationðð€of€the€òòHookeróó€and€òòLaskaóó€cases.ÌÌà àPrior€to€the€August€1,€1996€election,€the€Special€Supreme€Court,€acting€underÏsevere€time€constraints,€issued€a€series€of€orders.€€It€held€that€the€Tennessee€Plan× ƒ5 ××  ×€forÏthe€selection€and€evaluation€of€judges€was€constitutional,€but€not€applicable€to€theÏAugust€1st€election€because€the€judicial€evaluation€commission,€through€no€fault€ofÏJustice€White,€had€failed€to€evaluate€or€recommend€the€retention€of€Justice€White€inÏcompliance€with€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„114(c).€€The€SpecialÏSupreme€Court€held€that€although€Justice€White€was€not€entitled€to€run€in€a€"yes€or€no"Ïretention€election€as€provided€for€under€the€Plan,€she€was€deemed,€as€an€equitableÏmatter,€to€have€filed€a€qualifying€petition€as€a€candidate€for€a€contested€election€onÏAugust€1,€1996,€under€the€general€election€laws.€€The€Court€further€held€that€John€JayÏHooker€was€not€entitled€to€run€against€Justice€White€because€his€law€license€had€beenÏsuspended€and€that€Lewis€Laska€was€not€entitled€to€run€against€Justice€White€in€aÏcontested€election€because€he€was€not€a€resident€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division.€€Finally,Ïbecause€of€the€prevailing€uncertainty€regarding€the€statutory€scheme€for€election€ofÏSupreme€Court€Justices,€the€Special€Supreme€Court€in€another€order€extended€theÍqualifying€deadline€to€allow€independent€candidates€to€file€their€petitions€and€partyÏnominees€to€be€certified.ÌÌà àIn€a€later€federal€court€proceeding,€however,€the€United€States€District€Court€forÏthe€€Western€District€of€Tennessee€held€that€Justice€White,€and€other€appellate€judgesÏwho€would€be€affected€by€the€August€1,€1996€election,€enjoyed€a€cognizableÏconstitutionally€protected€property€right€in€the€expectation€to€run€on€a€ð ð"yes€or€no"ððÏretention€ballot€under€the€Tennessee€Plan,€specifically€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„114.€€ÏòòLillard,€et€al.€v.€Bursonóó,€No.€96„2721€(W.D.€Tenn.€July€15,€1996).€€The€federal€courtÏenjoined€the€state€from€taking€any€action€with€respect€to€Justice€Whiteððs€candidacy€otherÏthan€to€place€her€name€on€the€ballot€on€a€"yes€or€no"€retention€basis.€€There€was€noÏappeal.ÌÌà àThe€election€proceeded€on€August€1,€1996,€as€a€retention€election€under€theÏTennessee€Plan,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„101,€et€seq.€€A€majority€of€those€casting€ballotsÏvoted€against€retaining€Justice€White€as€a€justice€of€the€Supreme€Court,€and€her€termÏexpired€on€August€31,€1996,€pursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„112(b).€€Shortly€after€the€election,€the€Commission€asked€the€Tennessee€AttorneyÏGeneral€for€an€opinion€on€the€residency€requirements€that€applied€to€the€resultingÏvacancy.€€In€a€written€opinion€issued€on€September€9,€1996,€the€Attorney€General€statedÏthat€residents€from€both€the€Eastern€Grand€Division€and€the€Western€Grand€Division€ofÏthe€state€were€eligible€to€apply€to€fill€this€vacancy€on€the€Court.€€Based€upon€that€opinion,Íthe€Commission€opened€the€application€process€to€residents€of€both€grand€divisions.€ÏThe€plaintiff,€Judge€Janice€Holder,€a€resident€of€the€Western€Grand€Division,€filed€aÏtimely€application€with€the€Commission,€and€a€public€meeting€was€scheduled€forÏOctober11,€1996,€pursuant€to€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(a)(2).ÌÌà àOn€October€2,€1996,€the€Special€Supreme€Court€issued€an€opinion€explaining€itsÏearlier€orders.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Hooker€v.€Thompsonóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(No.€01S01„9605„CH„00106€(Tenn.,€filed€October€2,€1996€at€Nashville)).€€In€addition,€the€opinion€containedÏpart€VI€entitled€ð ðConsideration€of€Post€Judgment€Facts.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€___€(slip€op.€at€19).€€In€thatÏpart€of€the€opinion,€the€Court,€purporting€to€act€under€the€authority€of€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14,Ïtook€notice€of€the€matters€which€had€occurred€after€its€series€of€rulings€in€July€1996,Ïincluding€the€case€in€the€federal€district€court,€the€election€results,€and€the€September€9,Ï1996€Attorney€General€Opinion.€€The€Court,€acting€on€its€own€motion,€without€the€issueÏhaving€been€presented€or€briefed€or€orally€argued€by€the€interested€parties,€held€that€theÏconclusion€of€the€Attorney€General€that€the€vacancy€on€the€Court€could€be€filled€by€aÏqualified€applicant€from€either€the€Eastern€or€Western€Grand€Division€was€erroneous.€ÏThe€Court,€relying€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€17„1„301(b)€and€8„48„109,€€held€that€theÏvacancy€in€question€must€be€filled€by€a€resident€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€part€VI€of€the€Special€Supreme€Court€opinion,€the€CommissionÏrequested€a€second€opinion€from€the€Attorney€General€regarding€the€effect€of€theÏOpinion€on€the€residency€requirement.€€The€Attorney€General€advised€that€sinceÍð ðSection€VI€of€the€Special€Supreme€Courtððs€opinion€represents€the€only€pronouncementÏby€a€court€of€this€State€concerning€the€question€addressed€therein[,][the€Commission]Ïshould€nominate€only€applicants€who€are€residents€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division€to€fillÏthe€current€vacancy€on€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€in€accordance€with€the€viewsÏexpressed€[in€the€Opinion]€.€.€.€.ðð€The€plaintiffððs€lawsuit€followed.€€The€Chancery€CourtÏgranted€relief€by€enjoining€the€Commission€from€limiting€its€consideration€to€applicantsÏwho€are€residents€of€the€Eastern€Grand€Division,€and€by€ruling€that€the€Commission€mustÏconsider€applicants€from€either€the€Eastern€or€Western€Grand€Division.ÌÌà àThe€Commission€appealed€the€Chancery€Courtððs€ruling.€€Both€parties€thereafterÏjoined€in€a€Motion€for€the€Supreme€Court€to€Assume€Jurisdiction€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€16„3„201(d).€€Because€this€issue€is€a€matter€of€unusual€public€importance€inÏwhich€there€is€a€special€need€for€expedited€decision€and€which€involves€the€right€to€holdÏpublic€office,€this€Court€granted€the€Motion€to€Assume€Jurisdiction€and€heard€oralÏargument.€€The€public€hearing€on€this€matter€before€the€Commission€has€been€reset€forÏOctober€28,€1996.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òEFFECT€OF€SPECIAL€SUPREME€COURTððS€RULINGó óóóÌà àWe€first€consider€the€Chancery€Court's€holding€that€the€pronouncement€of€theÏSpecial€Supreme€Court€in€part€VI€of€its€October€2,€1996€opinion€regarding€the€residencyÏrequirements€of€the€current€vacancy€on€the€Supreme€Court€was€òòobiteróó€òòdictumóó.€€TheÍChancery€Court€noted€that€ð ðwhile€[the€opinion€was]€accorded€persuasive€authority,€[itÏwas]€not€binding€on€[the]€Court.ðð€€ÌÌà àAfter€a€thorough€consideration€of€the€issue€and€the€unique€facts€of€this€case,€weÏconclude€that€the€residency€issue€addressed€in€part€VI€of€the€Special€Supreme€Court'sÏopinion€was€not€before€the€Court.€€In€sum,€it€is€clear€that€the€pronouncement€of€theÏSpecial€Supreme€Court€in€this€regard€was€beyond€the€mandate€for€which€that€Court€wasÏcommissioned.€€ÌÌà àAfter€the€members€of€this€Court€disqualified€themselves€from€participating€in€theÏòòHookeróó€and€òòLaskaóó€cases,€the€Governor€commissioned€the€members€of€the€SpecialÏSupreme€Court€to€serve€as€special€justices€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€11€andÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„2„102.€€The€letter€sent€by€the€Governor€to€each€member€of€theÏSpecial€Supreme€Court€specifically€limited€the€mandate€of€the€Special€Supreme€Court.€ÏThe€letter€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àPursuant€to€my€authority€under€Article€VI,€Section€11,€of€theÏConstitution€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,€I€hereby€speciallyÏcommission€you€to€serve€as€a€special€justice€of€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€òòfor€the€trial€and€determinationÏof€State€of€Tennessee,€ex€rel.€Hooker€v.€Thompson,€No.Ï01„S„01„9605„CH„00106€and€State€of€Tennessee,€ex€rel.ÏLaska€v.€Thompson,€No.€01„S„01„9606„CH„00114.óóÌÌÓÓÌ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àThe€applicable€constitutional€and€statutory€provisions€limit€the€commission€of€aÏspecial€court€to€those€cases€and€issues€over€which€the€regular€members€of€the€court€areÏdisqualified€from€presiding.€€€Article€VI,€section€11€provides€that€ð ðin€case€all€or€any€of€theÏJudges€of€the€Supreme€Court€shall€thus€be€disqualified€from€presiding€on€the€trial€of€anyÏcause€or€causes,€the€Court,€or€the€Judges€thereof,€shall€certify€the€same€to€the€GovernorÏof€the€State,€and€he€shall€forthwith€specially€commission€the€[special€judges]€òòfor€the€trialÏand€determination€thereof.óóðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€Similarly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„2„103Ïprovides€that€ð ð[t]he€special€judges€so€commissioned€shall€òòhear€and€determine€theÏcauses€in€the€commission€set€forthóó€.€.€.€and€shall€have€the€same€power€and€authority€inÏthose€causes€as€the€regular€judges€of€the€court.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð17„2„102€(ð ðThe€judges€of€the€supreme€court€.€.€.€shall€certify€to€the€governorÏall€cases€.€.€.€in€which€[any]€of€them€is€incompetent€to€sit€.€.€.€[and]€the€governor€shallÏappoint€and€commission€the€requisite€number€of€competent€lawyers€to€dispose€of€theÏcauses.ðð).ÌÌà àThus,€the€commission€of€the€Special€Supreme€Court€was€limited€to€aÏð ðdeterminationðð€of€the€òòLaskaóó€and€òòHookeróó€cases.€€Those€cases€involved€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€August€1,€1996€election€for€the€Supreme€Court€position€would€be€a€retentionÏor€a€contested€election,€and€if€the€election€was€contested,€who€was€entitled€to€be€aÏcandidate.€€The€orders€of€the€Special€Supreme€Court€issued€prior€to€its€opinionÏaddressed€matters€directly€related€to€these€issues.€€The€first€five€sections€of€the€OctoberÍ2,€1996€opinion€also€related€to€these€issues;€however,€the€views€expressed€in€part€VI€didÏnot€relate€to€the€ð ðdeterminationðð€of€the€òòLaskaóó€and€òòHookeróó€cases.€€Thus,€theÏpronouncement€was€beyond€the€Special€Supreme€Courtððs€mandate.€€We€note€that€thisÏCourt€had€the€benefit€of€thorough€and€extensive€briefing€of€the€issues,€as€well€as€oralÏargument,€by€the€interested€parties,€an€advantage€that€the€Special€Supreme€Court€didÏnot€have€in€determining€the€residency€issue.ÌÌà àIn€view€of€our€holding,€we€need€not€decide€the€question€of€whether€the€SpecialÏSupreme€Courtððs€opinion€regarding€the€residency€requirements€of€the€current€vacancyÏwas€òòobiteróó€òòdictumóó€and€not€binding€on€the€trial€court€as€precedent,€as€found€by€theÏChancellor.€€We€observe,€however,€that€trial€courts€must€follow€the€directives€of€superiorÏcourts,€particularly€when€the€superior€court€has€given€definite€expression€to€its€views€in€aÏcase€after€careful€consideration.€€€òòTaylor€v.€Tayloróó,€162€Tenn.€482,€488„89,€40€S.W.2dÏ393,€395€(1931);€òòRose€v.€Blewettóó,€202€Tenn.€153,€161„62,€303€S.W.2d€709,€712„13Ï(1957);€òòDavis€v.€Mitchellóó,€27€Tenn.€App.€182,€223„24,€178€S.W.2d€889,€905„06€(1943)× ƒ6 ××  ×.€€ÏAccordingly,€inferior€courts€are€not€free€to€disregard,€on€the€basis€that€the€statement€isÏòòobiteróó€òòdictumóó,€œthe›€pronouncement€of€a€superior€court€when€it€speaks€directly€on€theÏmatter€before€it,€particularly€when€the€superior€court€seeks€to€give€guidance€to€the€benchÏand€bar.€€To€do€otherwise€invites€chaos€into€the€system€of€justice.€ÌÌòòà@ àò òRESIDENCY€REQUIREMENTó óóóÌà àThe€Chancery€Court€found€that€the€vacancy€should€be€filled€pursuant€to€theÏprovisions€of€the€Tennessee€Plan,€specifically,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(f).€€ThisÏstatutory€provision€states€that€the€judicial€selection€commission,€in€compiling€a€list€ofÏnominees€for€a€supreme€court€position,€shall€ð ðassure€that€the€requirements€of€article€VI,Ïsection€2,€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€are€satisfied.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€relevant€part,€Article€VI,Ïsection€2€mandates€that€ð ðnot€more€than€two€[justices]€shall€reside€in€any€one€of€the€grandÏdivisions€of€the€State.ðð€€Thus,€the€Chancery€Court€concluded€that€to€comply€with€theÏstatutory€and€constitutional€provisions,€applicants€for€the€current€vacancy€could€reside€inÏeither€the€Eastern€or€Western€Grand€Division.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Plan€became€effective€September€1,€1994.€€The€stated€purposesÏof€the€Plan€wereÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àto€assist€the€governor€in€finding€and€appointing€the€bestÏqualified€persons€available€for€service€on€the€appellateÏcourts€of€Tennessee,€and€to€assist€the€electorate€ofÏTennessee€to€elect€the€best€qualified€persons€to€the€courts;Ïto€insulate€the€judges€of€the€courts€from€political€influenceÏand€pressure;€to€improve€the€administration€of€justice;€toÏenhance€the€prestige€of€and€respect€for€the€courts€byÏeliminating€the€necessity€of€political€activities€by€appellateÏjustices€and€judges;€and€to€make€the€courts€ð ðnonpolitical.ððÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„101€(1994€Repl.€and€1996€Supp.).€€The€Plan€established€aÏJudicial€Selection€Commission,€whose€purpose€is€to€investigate€independently€andÏinquire€into€the€qualification€of€nominees€for€judicial€vacancies€which€arise€afterÏSeptember€1,€1994.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(a)(2)€&€(d).€When€such€vacanciesÏoccur,€the€Commission€acts€to€select€the€three€(3)€persons€whom€the€CommissionÏdeems€the€best€qualified€to€fill€the€vacancy€and€certifies€the€names€of€such€persons€toÏthe€Governor€as€nominees€for€the€vacancy.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(e).€€SectionÏ17„4„112€of€the€Code€provides€thatÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[w]hen€a€vacancy€occurs€in€the€office€of€an€appellate€courtÏafter€September€1,€1994,€by€death,€resignation€òòorÏotherwiseóó,€the€governor€shall€fill€the€vacancy€by€appointingÏone€(1)€of€the€three€(3)€persons€nominated€by€the€judicialÏselection€commission€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€only€limitation€on€residency€requirements€within€the€TennesseeÏPlan€is€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(f),€which€provides€thatÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à[t]he€judicial€selection€commission,€in€compiling€its€list€ofÏnominees€for€a€supreme€court€position,€shall€assure€thatÏthe€requirements€of€article€VI,€section€2,€of€the€TennesseeÏconstitution€are€satisfied€[that€is,€that€not€more€than€two€(2)Ïjustices€reside€in€each€grand€division].ÌÌÌÓÓòòSeeóóòòalsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð16„3„101(a)(ð ðThe€supreme€court€shall€consist€of€five€(5)Ïjudges,€one€(1)€of€whom€shall€reside€in€each€grand€division,€and€not€more€than€two€(2)€inÏthe€same€grand€division.ðð).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€following€the€decision€of€the€United€States€DistrictÏCourt€for€the€Western€District€of€Tennessee,€Justice€White€was€placed€on€the€August€1,Ï1996€ballot€for€a€"yes€or€no"€retention€vote€in€accordance€with€the€dictates€of€theÏTennessee€Plan,€specifically€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„114(b).€€The€negative€retentionÏvote€that€followed€obviously€left€a€vacancy€on€the€Court€after€September€1,€1994,€theÏeffective€date€of€the€Tennessee€Plan.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€provisions€of€the€PlanÏcontrol.€€Section€17„4„114(d)(2)€provides€thatÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 à[i]f€a€majority€or€one€half€(1/2)€of€those€voting€on€theÏquestion€vote€against€retaining€the€candidate€in€office,€thenÏa€vacancy€exists€as€of€September€1€after€the€regularÏAugust€election.€€The€governor€shall€fill€the€vacancy€from€aÏgroup€of€three€(3)€nominees€submitted€by€the€judicialÏselection€commission€as€provided€in€ðð€17„4„112.ÌÌÌÌÓÓSection€17„4„112,€of€course,€directs€the€Governor€to€fill€the€vacancy€by€appointing€oneÏ(1)€of€the€three€(3)€persons€nominated€by€the€Commission.€€As€discussed,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€17„4„109(f)€specifies€that€the€only€limitation€on€the€Commission€is€that€theÏnominees€qualify€under€Article€VI,€section€2€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€In€otherÏwords,€no€more€than€two€justices€may€reside€in€any€one€grand€division.€€Because€twoÏjustices€presently€reside€in€the€Middle€Grand€Division,€the€Article€VI,€section€2€limitationÏas€applied€in€this€case€means€that€a€resident€of€either€the€Eastern€or€Western€GrandÏDivision€may€apply€to€fill€the€current€vacancy.ÌÌà àIn€concluding€that€this€matter€is€controlled€by€the€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏPlan,€we€observe€that€there€are€other€statutory€provisions€addressing€the€replacement€ofÏjudges€and€the€matter€of€residency€requirements.€€For€instance,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€8„48„109€states€that€ð ð[a]ny€vacancy€in€the€office€of€supreme€court€or€court€of€appeals€judgeÏshall€be€filled€by€a€person€residing€in€the€grand€division€of€the€state€in€which€the€vacancyÏoccurs.ðð€€Similarly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„1„301(b)€states€that€ð ð[i]f€a€vacancy€shall€occurÏin€the€office€of€a€judge€of€the€supreme€court€.€.€.€it€shall€be€filled€from€the€grand€division€ofÏthe€state€in€which€the€vacancy€occurs.ððÌÌà àAlthough€the€provisions€of€Tenn€Code€Ann.€ðððð€8„48„109€and€17„1„301(b)€mayÏappear€at€first€blush€to€conflict€with€the€more€recently€adopted€provisions€of€theÏTennessee€Plan,€in€interpreting€statutory€provisions€we€begin€with€the€presumption€thatÏthe€acts€of€the€General€Assembly€are€constitutional.× ƒ7 ××  ×€€òòVogel€v.€Wells€Fargo€Guard€Servs.óó,Ï___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1996)(No.€03S01„9601„CV„00005€(filed€October7,€1996€atÏKnoxville));€òòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909€S.W.2d€768€(Tenn.€1995);€òòDavis„Kidd€Booksellers,ÏInc.€v.€McWherteróó,€866€S.W.2d€520€(Tenn.€1993).€€€Moreover,€in€construing€statutes,€weÏmust€presume€that€the€General€Assembly€knows€of€its€prior€enactments€and€knows€of€theÏexisting€state€of€the€law€at€the€time€it€passes€legislation.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2dÏ923,€926€(Tenn.€1995);€òòWilson€v.€Johnson€Countyóó,€879€S.W.2d€807,€810€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€Court€to€avoid€a€construction€that€will€place€oneÏstatute€in€conflict€with€another,€and€ð ðthe€Court€should€resolve€any€possible€conflictÏbetween€the€statutes€in€favor€of€each€other,€whenever€possible,€so€as€to€provide€aÏharmonious€operation€of€the€laws.ðð€€òòState€ex€rel.€Boone€v.€Sundquistóó,€884€S.W.2d€438,Ï444€(Tenn.€1994).€For€instance€ð ðwhere€there€is€a€conflict€between€a€special€statute€and€aÏgeneral€statute,€the€special€statute€will€be€given€effect.ðð€€òòIn€re€Harrisóó,€849€S.W.2d€334,Ï337€(Tenn.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òò€Watts€v.€Putnam€Countyóó,€525€S.W.2d€488,€492€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àHere,€the€retention€election€of€Justice€White€was€held€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏPlan,€which,€as€we€have€discussed,€contains€its€own€provision€for€filling€a€vacancy€in€theÏevent€a€judge€is€not€retained.€€Thus,€the€specific€residency€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÏPlan,€which€reflect€the€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€prevail€over€the€generalÏprovisions€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€8„48„109€and€17„1„301(b).€€Although€we€need€notÏdiscuss€the€parameters€of€these€statutory€provisions,€we€note€that€they€would€apply€inÏother€circumstances,€such€as€where€the€judicial€evaluation€commission€does€notÏrecommend€retention€of€a€judge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„114(c).€€This€conclusionÏfollows€our€familiar€rule€of€statutory€construction€to€"resolve€any€possible€conflictÏbetween€the€statutes€in€favor€of€each€other€.€.€.€so€as€to€provide€a€harmonious€operationÏof€the€laws."€€òòState€ex€rel.€Booneóó,€884€S.W.2d€at€444.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€October€2,€1996€ruling€of€the€Special€SupremeÏCourt€with€regard€to€the€residency€requirements€for€the€present€Supreme€Court€vacancyÏwas€not€before€that€Court€for€determination.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€residencyÏrequirements€for€the€vacancy€are€contained€within€the€Tennessee€Plan,€specifically,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„4„109(f).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€Commission€must€considerÏcandidates€for€the€vacancy€on€the€Court€from€both€the€Eastern€and€the€Western€GrandÏDivisions€of€the€State.€€The€judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€against€the€defendants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JusticeÌÌÌò òCONCUR:ó óÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota€and€Reid,€JJ.