Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court accepted this appeal to determined whether a lawyer's potential violation of the ethical rule governing communications with a person represented by another lawyer constitutes criminal contempt pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 29-9-102(1),(2). The trial court in this case convicted the attorney of criminal contempt. The attorney appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the "misbehavior" element of criminal contempt pursuant to section 29-9-102(1). The court of criminal appeals found the evidence sufficient and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of criminal appeals and vacated the attorney's conviction, holding that although a lawyer's violation of an ethical rule may in some circumstances amount to criminal contempt, the attorney's potential violation of the ethical rule governing communications with a person represented by another lawyer did not constitute criminal contempt pursuant to section 29-9-102(1),(2) because the evidence of "willful misbehavior" was insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.View "State v. Beeler" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court of criminal appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence but granted permission to appeal to address whether a discharged alternate juror's communication to the jury foreman entitled Defendant to a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient, admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of prejudice that accompanies an improper outside influence upon the jury, and because there was no reasonable possibility that the note from the discharged alternate juror to the foreman affected the verdict, Defendant was not entitled to relief on this issue; (2) the trial court did not err with respect to the admission of evidence or its jury instructions; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of first degree premeditated murder. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a claim against a county hospital (Hospital) alleging that the negligence of the hospital and its employees caused the death of their son. The claim was filed fifteen months after Plaintiffs' son's death. Hospital, a governmental entity, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Plaintiffs argued that their complaint was timely filed because Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121(c) extends the GTLA statute of limitations by 120 days. The trial court denied Hospital's motion to dismiss but granted an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 120-day extension provided by section 29-26-121(c) did not apply to Plaintiffs' claim brought under the GTLA. Remanded for entry of an order dismissing the complaint. View "Cunningham v. Williamson County Hosp. Dist." on Justia Law

A concrete truck collided with a shuttle bus used to transport passengers between an airport and a rental car facility. A passenger who was injured during the collision and his wife filed an action against the bus owner, bus manufacturer, manufacturer of the bus windows, and franchisor of the rental car business. Plaintiffs based their claims in negligence and products liability, arguing that the bus was unsafe because it did not have passenger seatbelts, had windows made of tempered glass, and provided perimeter seating instead of forward-facing rows. A jury found Plaintiffs had sustained damages but assessed 100 percent of the fault to the corporate owner of the concrete truck, which had previously settled with Plaintiffs. On appeal, the court of appeals held that federal law preempted the seatbelt and window-glass claims and ruled that the trial court erred by failing to grant a directed verdict on the perimeter-seating claim. The Supreme Court remanded. On remand, the court of appeals affirmed its prior judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the seatbelt and window-glass claims were not preempted by federal law; and (2) the evidence sufficiently demonstrated causation in fact as to the perimeter-seating claim. Remanded. View "Lake v. The Memphis Landsmen, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder. Defendant appealed, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court of criminal appeals found the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction of especially aggravated robbery and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on Defendant's conviction of second degree murder. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder.View "State v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison, appealed, alleging a number of errors in the conduct of the trial, particularly the trial court's failure to suppress a statement Defendant had made to the police. The court of criminal appeals held that the admission of the statement qualified as harmless error. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's application for permission to appeal in order to determine the propriety of Defendant's arrest and to consider whether the court of criminal appeals had used the appropriate standard of review in its harmless error analysis. The Supreme Court then affirmed the judgment, holding that the arrest of Defendant was supported by probable cause and there was no other prejudicial error during the course of the trial.View "State v. Echols" on Justia Law

A law firm filed suit against two former employees. Both defendants filed motions to compel arbitration. The trial court stayed discovery except as to the issue of whether the cases were subject to arbitration. The court subsequently ordered the parties to engage in mediation and to disclose the "necessary documents to conduct a meaningful attempt at resolution" despite the prior order limiting discovery. The defendants filed a motion to vacate the order requiring arbitration, which the trial court and court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court and remanded for a determination on the motions to compel arbitration, holding that the trial court (1) erred in ordering discovery without limiting the scope of discovery to the issue of arbitrability in contravention of the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act; and (2) erred in referring the parties to mediation in an effort to resolve all issues. View "Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. Wade" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that Davidson County Sheriff's officers arrested and wrongfully interrogated and detained them while officers investigated Plaintiffs' immigration status pursuant to the October 2009 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into between the Davidson County Sheriff's Office (DCSO) and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The MOA authorized selected DCSO personnel to perform certain immigration officer duties after being trained and certified by ICE. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer whether the MOA violated the Charter of Nashville and Davidson County. The Court held (1) the MOA did not violate the Charter or any other state law cited by Plaintiffs; and (2) the Sheriff of Davidson County had authority under the Charter to perform the duties enumerated in the MOA.View "Renteria-Villegas v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County " on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against several health care providers and subsequently dismissed the lawsuit, Plaintff re-filed the action after the legislature enacted Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-121 and Tenn. Code Ann. 29-26-12. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with sections 29-26-121 and 122. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff's original suit constituted substantial compliance with the statutes' requirements and that extraordinary cause existed to excuse complaince with the requirements of section 29-26-121. The court of appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory requirements that a plaintiff give sixty days presuit notice and file a certificate of good faith with the complaint are mandatory requirements and not subject to substantial compliance; and (2) Plaintiff's failure to comply with section 29-26-122 by filing to certificate of good faith with his complaint required a dismissal with prejudice.View "Myers v. Amisub (SFH), Inc." on Justia Law

Following their divorce, the former husband of a child's mother filed suit against the mother for negligent misrepresentation, alleging that she had intentionally misled him into believing that he was the child's biological father. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband and awarded him $134,877 in compensatory damages, emotional distress, and attorney's fees. The court of appeals determined the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the child's mother had intentionally misrepresented the identity of the child's biological father but (1) reversed the damage award based on the post-divorce payments for child support, medical expenses, and insurance expenses on the ground that these damages amounted to a prohibited retroactive modification of a child support order, (2) reversed the damage award for emotional distress, and (3) reversed the award for attorney's fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the existing common-law action for intentional misrepresentation encompasses the claims made in this case by the former husband and that the trial court's damage award based on the former husband's post-divorce payments for his child's expenses was not an improper retroactive modification of the former husband's child support obligation.View "Hodge v. Craig" on Justia Law