Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a Brady claim is cognizable in the context of a petition for writ of error coram nobis and whether Appellant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be dismissed as time-barred even though the State was not brought into the coram nobis proceedings at the trial court level and, consequently, did not assert the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in the trial court. Appellant filed a coram nobis petition alleging that the State committed a Brady violation. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s petition in part because it was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed because the petition did not present newly discovered evidence warranting coram nobis relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an error coram nobis proceeding is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for obtaining relief from an alleged Brady violation; (2) timeliness under the statute of limitations is an essential element of a coram nobis claim that must be demonstrated on the face of the petition; (3) the facts supporting an equitable tolling request must likewise appear on the face of the petition; and (4) the trial court did not err in dismissing the coram nobis petition in this case. View "Nunley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the chancery court reversing the decision of a hearing panel denying Attorney’s petition to be reinstated to the practice of law in Tennessee following his disbarment and ordering Attorney reinstated, holding that the chancery court misapplied the applicable standard of review.In 2007, Attorney pleaded guilty to federal charges of receipt and possession of images depicting child pornography. In 2008, Attorney consented to his disbarment. In 2014, after he was discharged from prison and while on probation, Attorney petitioned to be reinstated to the practice of law. The Board of Professional Responsibility opposed the petition. The Supreme Court held that substantial and material proof supported the panel’s conclusion that Attorney had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence his moral qualifications for reinstatement, and that the chancery court impermissibly reweighed the evidence in the record before it. View "Smith v. Board of Professional Responsibility" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s claim brought against Defendant pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. 4301 to 4335 (USERRA), accrued prior to July 1, 2014 and remained barred by sovereign immunity.In 2014, the General Assembly enacted a statute waiving Tennessee’s sovereign immunity for claims bought against the State pursuant to USERRA. The waiver of sovereign immunity became effective on July 1, 2014 and applied to USERRA claims accusing on or after that date. Relying on this newly enacted statute, Plaintiff brought a USERRA claim against Defendant, an entity of the State, based on facts that occurred prior to August 8, 2014. the trial court dismissed the claim, concluding that the claim remained barred by sovereign immunity because it accrued prior to July 1, 2014. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on July 1, 2014 when Plaintiff gained a judicial remedy by the enactment of the statute waiving sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s claim accrued prior to July 1, 2014. View "Smith v. Tennessee National Guard" on Justia Law

A trial court, after the abatement of a divorce action, may remedy a violation of the statutory injunction imposed by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-4-106(d)(2), which prohibits parties after a divorce complaint is served from changing the beneficiary on any life insurance policy that names either party as the beneficiary, by considering the equities of the parties.After suing Bryan Olson for divorce, Jessica Olson changed the beneficiary on her life insurance policy from Bryan to her mother, Rose Coleman. After Jessica died, Rose collected the life insurance benefits. Rose then sued Bryan for grandparent visitation. Bryan responded that he did not oppose visitation and countersued to recover the life insurance benefits. The trial court (1) awarded the insurance benefits to the Olsons’ child, finding that Jessica had intended to substitute the child as the beneficiary, and (2) awarded Rose grandparent visitation. The court of appeals (1) awarded Bryan the life insurance benefits based on Jessica’s violation of the statutory injunction, and (2) reversed the visitation award. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding (1) the Olsons’ divorce action abated when Jessica died, and the statutory injunction Jessica violated became ineffective; and (2) Rose was not entitled to court-ordered grandparent visitation absent Bryan’s opposition to visitation. View "Coleman v. Olson" on Justia Law

At issue in this dissenters’ rights case was the methods by which a trial court may determine the “fair value” of shares of a dissenting shareholder under Tennessee’s dissenters’ rights statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. 48-23-101, et seq.The Supreme Court overruled Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 659 (Tenn. 1983), to the extent Blasingame implicitly mandates use of the Delaware Block method for determining the fair value of a dissenting shareholder’s stock and adopted the more open approach set forth in Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 712-13 (Del. 1983), which departs from the Delaware Block method and permits fair value to be determined by using any technique or method that is generally acceptable in the financial community and admissible in court.Defendant minority shareholders were forced out of a corporation as a result of a merger. The corporation sought a determination as to the fair value of the minority shareholders’ stock. The trial court may have based its decision to discredit the testimony of the dissenting shareholders’ expert on the basis that Blasingame compelled use of the Delaware Block method to determine stock value. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider its valuation determination in light of this decision to partially overrule Blasingame. View "Athlon Sports Communications, Inc. v. Duggan" on Justia Law

In this case alleging health care liability claims, the trial court erred by allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations to substitute as a defendant a health care provider to which Plaintiff had not sent pre-suit notice.The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals, holding that Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory pre-suit notice provision of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121(a)(1), because she did not give written pre-suit notice of the potential claim to the health care provider she later sought to substitute as a defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. View "Runions v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District" on Justia Law

In this case alleging health care liability claims, the trial court erred by allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations to substitute as a defendant a health care provider to which Plaintiff had not sent pre-suit notice.The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals, holding that Plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory pre-suit notice provision of the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121(a)(1), because she did not give written pre-suit notice of the potential claim to the health care provider she later sought to substitute as a defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. View "Runions v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District" on Justia Law

A new rule applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review when the new rule is announced but is subject to other jurisprudential concepts such as appellate review preservation requirements and the plain error doctrine.On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s convictions under the criminal gang offense statute, see Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-121(b), holding (1) the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016), declaring the criminal gang offense statute unconstitutional applied to Defendant’s appeal because it was pending on direct review when Bonds was decided; (2) Defendant’s entitlement to relief must be evaluated by applying the plain error doctrine because Defendant failed to challenge the constitutionality of the statute in trial court; and (3) Defendant established the criteria necessary to obtain relief pursuant to the plain error doctrine. The Court remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing on Defendant’s remaining convictions without any classification or sentence enhancement pursuant to the criminal gang offense statute. View "State v. Minor" on Justia Law

A surviving spouse maintains priority to file a wrongful death action when the decedent’s child has also filed a wrongful death action in which the child alleges that the surviving spouse negligently caused the decedent’s death.The daughter of the decedent in this case filed a wrongful death action alleging that the decedent’s surviving spouse negligently caused the decedent’s death. The surviving spouse also filed a wrongful death action for the decedent’s death. The surviving spouse moved for dismissal of the daughter’s complaint, arguing that the surviving spouse had priority to file a wrongful death action. The trial court agreed and dismissed the daughter’s complaint. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that, under the circumstances of this case, the surviving spouse was disqualified from filing the wrongful death action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly dismissed the daughter’s wrongful death action because (1) the wrongful death statutes do not include an exception to the rule that surviving spouses have the priority to institute a wrongful death action when a spouse’s alleged negligence caused the decedent’s death; and (2) the surviving spouse did not waive his right to file the wrongful death action under the circumstances of this case. View "Nelson v. Myres" on Justia Law

Tenn. Code Ann. 67-1-901, et seq., rather than Tenn. Code Ann. 67-1-1801, et seq., apply to a suit to recover municipal taxes, and under section 67-1-901(a) the alcoholic beverage retailers in this case were required to have paid under protest the disputed taxes before filing suit.From 2011-2014, the City of Morristown charged alcoholic beverage retailers higher inspection fees than was authorized by the city ordinance. Plaintiffs, a group of alcoholic beverage retailers, paid the excess fees but not under protest. Plaintiffs requested refunds, but the city denied the requests. Plaintiffs then sued for recovery of the excess collections and other damages. The trial court awarded Plaintiffs a judgment for the overpayments. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Plaintiffs did not pay the taxes under protest, they were not entitled to refunds. View "Chuck's Package Store v. City of Morristown" on Justia Law