Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
On the bench with
In Re: Loring Edwin Justice
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2021-08-16
This case concerned a disbarred Tennessee attorney who petitioned for relief from over $25,000 in costs assessed against him for the underlying disciplinary proceedings under pre-2014 Supreme Court Rule 9, section 24.3. The attorney objected to various time entries by disciplinary counsel, travel charges, FedEx expenses, and transcript costs, and sought discovery, while also raising constitutional challenges to the proceedings. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility reduced the costs by 11.2 hours of counsel time but denied the remaining requests. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the panel's decision in full, holding that the assessed costs were reasonable and necessary under the broad language of the rule, that discovery was not authorized, and that the panel's rulings were supported by substantial and material evidence without constitutional or procedural violations.
procedure
Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. F/K/A Milan Express, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc.
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2021-08-02
The case involved a logistics company that purchased over 200 trucks from a manufacturer and dealer, then sued for fraudulent inducement and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act after experiencing engine problems. The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed whether the economic loss doctrine, which bars tort recovery for purely economic losses, applies to fraudulent inducement claims between sophisticated commercial parties when the claims concern misrepresentations about the quality of goods covered by a contract. The court held that the doctrine does apply in these circumstances and therefore bars the fraud claim, and it further ruled that the TCPA claim fails because the trucks do not qualify as goods under the specific statutory provision relied upon. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment on these separate grounds and set aside the award of attorney's fees and costs under the TCPA.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
State of Tennessee v. Terrell Lamont Reid
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2021-03-26
In this case, Terrell Lamont Reid pleaded guilty in 2015 to drug and firearm offenses, with the latter enhanced to a Class B felony under Tennessee's criminal gang enhancement statute, which was presumptively valid at the time. After the Court of Criminal Appeals later declared the enhancement statute unconstitutional in 2016, Reid filed a 2019 motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct his sentence as illegal, without pursuing post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding the sentence void. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the sentence was voidable rather than void or illegal under Rule 36.1, consistent with its prior ruling in Taylor v. State that a statute's later invalidation does not retroactively render sentences imposed under it illegal when the law was presumptively constitutional at sentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
Clarissa Bidwell, Ex Rel James Bidwell v. Timothy A. Strait MD
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2021-01-26
This case involved a health care liability action filed by James Bidwell, individually and on behalf of his deceased wife, against two physicians and entities he believed employed them, alleging negligence in her medical care. The plaintiff provided timely pre-suit notice and filed suit against the named defendants but did not notify or sue Erlanger, the physicians' actual employer under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The physicians' answers asserted Erlanger's comparative fault, prompting the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint within ninety days, but he did not file an amended complaint or cause process to issue to Erlanger. The trial court granted summary judgment to the physicians, finding the amendment futile due to lack of pre-suit notice to Erlanger; the Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the physicians' noncompliance with notice requirements provided no remedy and did not excuse the plaintiff's failure, while the answers triggered the grace period under section 20-1-119 yet the plaintiff failed to meet its procedural requirements. The court reinstated the trial court's orders denying amendment and granting summary judgment.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability
In Re Neveah M.
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2020-12-10
The case concerned the termination of a mother's parental rights to her child Neveah under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14), which requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent has failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to resolve a split among Court of Appeals decisions interpreting the statute as requiring proof that the parent was both unable and unwilling versus either unable or unwilling. The court held the statute ambiguous and adopted the latter construction as best reflecting legislative intent, overruled inconsistent precedents, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court's termination judgment.
family law
Brice Cook v. State of Tennessee
Tennessee Supreme Court · 2020-08-25
The case involved Brice Cook's petition for post-conviction relief following his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel including failure to timely communicate a plea offer. The dispositive issue before the Supreme Court of Tennessee was whether the post-conviction judge, who had presided over the underlying trial, should have recused himself based on comments during the hearing that could reasonably call his impartiality into question, despite the absence of a recusal motion. The court held that recusal was required, reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, vacated the post-conviction court's judgment, and remanded the matter for a new hearing before a different judge. The core reasoning emphasized that judges must recuse when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned to preserve both the fact and appearance of justice, applying this standard even without a party request.
criminal lawprocedure