Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Delawrence Williams was indicted for possession of over one-half gram of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that probable cause had not been shown for the issuance of a search warrant. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court granted this interlocutory appeal to review: (1) whether the information used to obtain a search warrant to search the defendant’s residence was provided by a “citizen informant” and presumptively reliable; and (2) whether the information, if not provided by a “citizen informant,” nonetheless established probable cause under "Tennessee v. Jacumin," (778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989)). After reviewing the record and applicable authority, the Supreme Court held: (1) that the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals properly granted the interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; and (2) that although the information used to obtain the search warrant for the defendant’s residence was not provided by a “citizen informant,” it established probable cause under the two-prong analysis in Jacumin. The judgment was therefore affirmed. View "Tennessee v. Williams" on Justia Law

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., and Cracker Barrel Associates, LLC, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) owned certain real property on Sidco Drive in Davidson County. Richard Epperson and Timothy Causey (collectively “Defendants”) owned adjoining property. Both parcels were subject to a Declaration of Reciprocal Rights and Easements and Restrictive Covenants (“Declaration”), created by the original developer of these two parcels and several others in the same development. In April 2005, Defendants submitted to the Nashville/Davidson County Metropolitan Council a proposal to expand the building on their property. Upon learning of the plan, Plaintiffs notified Defendants that they believed the new construction would violate covenants 1(a), 2, and 3 of the Declaration, granting mutual vehicular easements to the adjoining owners and prohibiting obstruction to traffic flow. Defendants disagreed and persisted in seeking approval for their plan. In August, Plaintiffs filed suit to try and stop Defendants' building plans. The trial court ultimately granted Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunctive relief. On October 21, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Costs and Expenses, seeking almost $62,000 in attorney fees to that point. The ultimately resolved the substantive issues of the lawsuit and on January 30, 2006, the trial court entered an Agreed Judgment and Permanent Injunction, which permanently enjoined Defendants from expanding the building on their property. With regard to fees, the parties agreed that they would submit the fee matter to non-binding mediation. After the parties failed to reach an agreement, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for costs and expenses, requesting $3,913.75 in costs and expenses and a total of $117,334.50 in attorney fees. In their response to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants again asserted that Plaintiffs were not entitled to recover attorney fees because the Declaration did not expressly provide for their recovery. The trial court ultimately denied Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, explaining that no authority presented supported a finding that the contractual language of Paragraph 9 of the Declaration created a right to recover attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs’ application for review to clarify the application of the American rule regarding attorney fees to the language in the Declaration, and affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., et al. v. Epperson, et al." on Justia Law

After its closure, a landfill continued to discharge contaminants into a creek that ran into a lake on adjoining property. After several failed remedial measures, ACC, LLC (ACC), the landfill owner, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation agreed to a plan to abate the discharge. The plan required ACC to divert water from entering the landfill and, within a four-year period, to remove and relocate the landfill waste. StarLink Logistics, Inc., the landowner of the property on which the lake was located, objected to the plan. The Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control Board approved ACC’s plan of action. The trial court affirmed. The Court of Appeals rejected the Board’s decision and remanded the case to the Board to explore more options. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals misapplied the arbitrary and capricious standard and instead substituted its judgment for that of the Board. Remanded. View "Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first offense driving under the influence. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that the warrantless seizure of his parked vehicle and the ensuing field sobriety tests were not supported by reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding that the arresting officer’s activation of his patrol car’s rear blue lights was an exercise of the community caretaking function and not a seizure.The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court’s decision in State v. Moats, which held that the community caretaking doctrine is not an exception to the federal and state constitutional warrant requirements, was wrongly decided and is hearby overruled; (2) the community caretaking exception is an exception to the state and federal constitutional warrant requirements that may be invoked to validate as reasonable a warrantless seizure of an automobile; and (3) the community caretaking exception applies in this case. View "State v. McCormick" on Justia Law

American Heritage Apartments, Inc., a customer of the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County Authority), filed suit both individually and as a class representative asserting that the County Authority exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a monthly charge on its customers. The County Authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the UDL do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) the trial court’s alternative ruling on class certification is vacated, and that issue is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. View "Am. Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. Hamilton County Water & Wastewater Treatment Auth." on Justia Law

American Heritage Apartments, Inc., a customer of the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County Authority), filed suit both individually and as a class representative asserting that the County Authority exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a monthly charge on its customers. The County Authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the UDL do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) the trial court’s alternative ruling on class certification is vacated, and that issue is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration. View "Am. Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. Hamilton County Water & Wastewater Treatment Auth." on Justia Law

In 1998, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner subsequently pursued collateral review without success. In 1990, the Tennessee General Assembly passed legislation providing that no defendant with an intellectual disability at the time of committing first-degree murder shall be sentenced to death. In 2012, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was intellectually disabled within the meaning of the intellectual disability statute. Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Keen v. State, in which the Court held that Coleman v. State did not provide a basis for reopening a postconviction proceeding in order to assess a capital defendant’s claim of intellectual disability. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for relief from death sentences seeking relief pursuant to the error coram nobis statute and the intellectual disability statute. The trial court denied the motion to reopen and amended petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the procedural avenues by which Petitioner was seeking relief in this proceeding did not entitle him to the hearing he sought. View "Payne v. State" on Justia Law

Four university football players were indicted for criminal charges arising out of the alleged rape of a university student. Petitioners, a group of media organizations and a citizens group, made a Public Records Act request to inspect the police department’s files regarding its investigation of the football players. The police department denied the request. Petitioners filed a petition against the police department seeking access to the requested records under the Tennessee Public Records Act. The Court of Appeals concluded that all of the requested materials were relevant to a pending or contemplated criminal action and were therefore exempt from public disclosure under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) during the pendency of a criminal case and any collateral challenges to any conviction, Rule 16 governs the disclosure of information, and only the defendants, not the public, may receive information contained in the police investigative files; and (2) based on Rule 16, Petitioners have no right to the requested information during the pendency of the criminal cases and any collateral challenges to any convictions. View "The Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary and multiple counts of aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the post-conviction court’s judgment on Petitioner’s convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly request jury instructions on aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals (1) erred in concluding that Petitioner was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on aggravated kidnapping; and (2) properly affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief on Petitioner’s other convictions. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant within the extended statute of limitations set by a tolling agreement. Plaintiff voluntarily nonsuited the action and refiled it within one year but after the extended statute of limitations in the tolling agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, determining that the case was not timely filed. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the tolling agreement precluded application of the savings statute and, therefore, Plaintiff’s claims were barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the parties’ agreement, the savings statute applied to save the suit that Plaintiff refiled after the extended statute of limitations set in the tolling agreement but within the one-year period provided by the savings statute. Remanded. View "Circle C. Constr., LLC v. Nilsen" on Justia Law