See BIF v. Service Constr. Co., No. 87-136-II, 1988 WL 72409, at * 6 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 13, 1988) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed). Discretionary decisions are not entirely immune from appellate scrutiny but are subjected to less rigorous appellate scrutiny. See Martin B. Louis, Allocating Adjudicative Decision Making Authority Between the Trial and Appellate Level: A Unified Vieiv of the Scope of Revieiv, the Judge/Jury Question, and Procedural Discretion, 64 N.C.L.Rev. 993, 1045-46 (1986); Maurice Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed From Above, 22 Syracuse L.Rev. 635, 667 (1971). Discretionary decisions must take applicable law into account and must be consistent with the facts before the court. See Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the appellate courts will set aside a
holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that the district court must give parties notice of intent to depart holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue