Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jan McCool attempted to get medication at a Wal-mart Super Center, but Wal-Mart employees refused to fill McCool's medical prescriptions because they believed she was intoxicated. McCool became belligerent when her prescriptions were not filled, and the pharmacy employees ordered her out of the store. McCool's vehicle subsequently struck Jolyn Cullum in the Wal-Mart parking lot. Cullum, who had gone to Wal-Mart to shop for groceries, sued Wal-Mart for negligence. The trial judge granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, concluding that Wal-Mart did not have a legal duty to control McCool after she left the store. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Wal-Mart owed Cullum a duty of care to protect her from McCool. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss because (1) the foreseeability of harm and the gravity of harm to Cullum outweighed the burden placed on Wal-Mart to protect Cullum against that harm; and (2) therefore, Cullum's complaint contained sufficient allegations which, taken as true, established that Wal-Mart owed a duty of care to Cullum. Remanded. View "Cullum v. McCool" on Justia Law

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) issued a permit allowing a limestone quarry to discharge water into Horse Creek. A wildlife sanctuary (sanctuary) filed a petition with the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board (Board) seeking to appeal the permit's issuance and requesting a declaratory order regarding the proper interpretation of the Antidegradation Rule (Rule). After the Board scheduled a contested case hearing, an ALJ dismissed the request for a declaratory order, concluding that Tenn. Code Ann. 69-3-105(i) provided the exclusive to obtain administrative review of TDEC's decision. Rather than pursuing the pending permit appeal, the sanctuary filed a petition in the chancery court seeking a declaratory judgment. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment regarding the proper interpretation and application of the Rule to the discharge permit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 69-3-105(i) disallows parties challenging the issuance of a discharge permit from seeking a declaratory order from the Board regarding the issuance of the permit and requires parties to first exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the issuance of a discharge permit; and (2) the sanctuary failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and therefore, the trial court should have declined to adjudicate the sanctuary's petition for a declaratory judgment. View "Pickard v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a health care liability action against Defendant, a physician. Plaintiff's original complaint was filed prior to the effective date of the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his original action. Plaintiff subsequently filed his action after the effective date of section 29-26-121. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff's second action was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff responded that (1) his pre-suit notice commenced his new action prior to the expiration of the one-year saving statute; and (2) alternatively, section 29-26-121 extended the saving statute by 120 days. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's action was commenced by the filing of his second health care liability complaint rather than by providing pre-suit notice; and (2) a plaintiff who files his initial action prior to the effective date of section 29-26-121 dismisses his original action, properly provides pre-suit notice, and refiles his action after the effective date of section 29-26-121 is entitled to the 120-day extension. View "Rajvongs v. Wright" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants in California state court for business-related torts. Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed his complaint and re-filed his action in the federal district court, alleging several federal securities law violations. The federal court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. Thereafter, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint and filed the present action in a Tennessee state court, pleading three of the state-law claims that formed the basis for his two previously dismissed lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by Plaintiff's second voluntary dismissal in federal court. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff's second voluntary dismissal of supplemental state-law claims filed in federal court does not preclude the plaintiff from later re-filing an action based on the same claims in Tennessee state court. Remanded. View "Cooper v. Glasser" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a healthcare liability suit against several healthcare providers (collectively, Defendants). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on Plaintiff's noncompliance with Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), which requires that a plaintiff's pre-suit notice to a healthcare provider include a HIPAA complaint medical authorization in order to permit the healthcare provider to obtain complete medical records from all other providers that are being sent a notice. The trial court denied Defendants' motion, concluding that Plaintiff's noncompliance with section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) was excused by extraordinary cause. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiff was required to substantially comply with section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E), and Plaintiff's failure to comply was not excused by extraordinary cause. View "Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against Anderson County for injuries he received during an altercation with another inmate while he was in custody at the Anderson County Detention Facility. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed the staff at the facility was negligent in classifying and housing him and in failing to release him in a timely manner. The trial court (1) found the County was not negligent in its classification or housing of Plaintiff, but (2) breached its duty in failing to timely release Plaintiff. The trial court awarded Plaintiff damages and assessed fifty-five percent of the fault to the County and forty-five percent to Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed. In so holding, the court of appeals added its own specific finding that Plaintiff's injury was reasonably foreseeable as a result of being left in a cell with dangerous men an unreasonable amount of time after the release order was given. The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated the damages award, holding that the County was not liable for failing to release Plaintiff in a timely manner because the injuries he suffered as a result of the delay were not reasonably foreseeable. View "King v. Anderson County" on Justia Law

Upon Mother and Father's divorce, Mother was named the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children, and Father was awarded visitation. Overall, Mother was allocated 280 days and Father eighty-five days of residential parenting time. Approximately one year later, Father filed a motion to modify the parenting plan, requesting equal time with the children. The trial court concluded that Father satisfied his burden of proving a change of circumstances and modified the residential parenting schedule to provide Mother 222 days and Father 143 days of parenting time with the children. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Father's relocation and remarriage were not material and unanticipated changes that affected the children in any meaningful way. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the judgment of the trial court, holding that, in seeking to modify the residential parenting schedule, Father was not required to prove that his alleged material changes in circumstances were unanticipated when the schedule was originally established. View "Armbrister v. Armbrister" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a law providing that citizens who appear in person to vote must present photographic proof of their identity. The statute authorized a photographic identification card issued by the State as a valid form of identification. Plaintiffs were two residents who attempted to vote in the primary election using photographic identification cards issued by the City of Memphis Public Library. The residents and City filed a declaratory judgment action arguing (1) the photographic identification requirement violated constitutional protections, and (2) the City qualified as an entity of the State authorized to issue valid photographic identification cards through its public library. The trial court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the photographic identification requirement did not violate constitutional principles, and (2) the photographic identification cards issued by the library complied with the statute for voting purposes. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the issue pertaining to the library cards as photographic identification was moot because a change in the law precluded the use of photographic identification cards issued by municipalities or their libraries for voting purposes; and (2) the photographic identification requirement met constitutional scrutiny. View "City of Memphis v. Hargett" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count each of especially aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. In sentencing Defendant, the trial judge sentenced Defendant to consecutive twenty-five year sentences for each attempted first degree murder conviction. The court of criminal appeals (1) reduced one count of attempted first degree murder to attempted second degree murder, concluding that insufficient evidence supported the convictions, and modified the conviction of especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary; and (2) affirmed the other convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions of two counts of attempted first degree murder; and (2) the trial judge did not err in imposing consecutive sentencing for the two attempted first degree murder convictions. View "State v. Dickson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder. The jury imposed a sentence of death based on three aggravating circumstances. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt of first degree felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the sentence of death was not excessive, disproportionate, or imposed arbitrarily; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the evidence supported the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Pruitt" on Justia Law