Cornelia A. Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case concerned challenges to Tennessee's interpretation of absentee voting eligibility requirements under state law during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically whether voters without special vulnerability to the virus could qualify for mail ballots to avoid in-person voting risks. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's temporary injunction that had broadly expanded absentee voting access. The court held that persons with special vulnerability to COVID-19 and their caretakers were already eligible under the state's conceded interpretation, requiring the state to issue appropriate guidance, while vacating the injunction as to other voters because they were unlikely to succeed on the merits given the state's interests in election integrity. The court further directed that absentee ballots already cast for the August 2020 election under the injunction be counted, and remanded the cases.

electionscivil rights

This case involved challenges to Tennessee's interpretation of absentee voting eligibility under Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-6-201 during the COVID-19 pandemic, where plaintiffs sought to allow mail ballots for any voter seeking to avoid in-person voting due to the virus. The trial court issued a temporary injunction mandating expanded absentee access, but the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated it in part. The court determined that the state already permitted absentee voting for persons with special vulnerability to COVID-19 and their caretakers under its existing construction of the statute, rendering injunctive relief unnecessary for them, while for all other voters the state's interests in election integrity outweighed any burden on voting rights, making plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits. Ballots already cast pursuant to the injunction for the August 2020 election were ordered to be counted, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a father who, after a general sessions court issued a one-year order of protection against him regarding his ex-wife and minor child, attempted to challenge it more than ten days later by filing in chancery court a petition to enroll a Texas divorce decree along with an appeal styled as a writ of error seeking a new hearing on the protection order. The chancery court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the untimely appeal and the obsolete nature of the writ of error, also dismissed the enrollment petition because an incomplete copy of the decree was provided, and awarded the mother over $25,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the writ of error remained viable and limiting the fee award, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the chancery court’s full judgment. The Supreme Court reasoned that statutory deadlines barred the appeal, the writ of error is no longer available as a method of review, the incomplete decree filing was defective, and statutes authorized the full fee award for defending the entire action.

family lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing a hospital and doctor for alleged negligence in the care of a patient who died by suicide after admission for psychiatric treatment and detoxification, raising questions about compliance with pre-suit notice rules. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' medical authorizations were deficient under Section 121(a)(2)(E) because they lacked three of the six core HIPAA elements, so the plaintiffs did not substantially comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements and were not entitled to the 120-day extension of the statute of limitations. The court clarified that prejudice is relevant but not a separate element in assessing substantial compliance, that plaintiffs bear the initial burden of showing compliance or extraordinary cause, and that defendants must file a Rule 12.02(6) motion with specific allegations of noncompliance and prejudice. Because the first suit was untimely, the savings statute did not apply to the refiled action, and the court reinstated the trial court's dismissal of the case as time-barred.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether a trial court could suspend Cumberland Bail Bonding from writing bonds in Van Buren County after the company violated a local court rule by failing to have an agent present when two defendants did not appear for scheduled court dates. The trial court suspended the company, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that suspension, and the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court held that Local Rule 26.05(B), which requires bonding companies both to notify defendants of appearances and to send an agent to court, does not conflict with state statutes on bail and forfeiture, serves rational purposes such as facilitating court proceedings and conserving resources, and is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Court therefore reversed the intermediate appellate decision and reinstated the trial court's suspension order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a certified question from federal court regarding the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-39-102(e), which caps noneconomic damages in personal injury actions. In dissent, Justice Clark would hold that the statute violates article I, section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution. The core reasoning is that the provision improperly removes from the jury its historically protected role in determining the amount of damages in common-law tort cases, a function the constitutional right to jury trial has preserved unchanged since 1796; the opinion cites longstanding precedent establishing that assessment of uncertain damages is peculiarly within the jury's province and that legislative caps amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of that fact-finding role.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether a Tennessee criminal court could modify or partially vacate a final 2012 order that dismissed indictments against Carl Allen for violating sexual offender registration reporting requirements, based on his prior Florida conviction. Several years after the dismissal order became final, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation sought to intervene and obtain relief from the order, arguing the court had improperly classified Allen's offender status. The trial court agreed and issued a 2017 order partially vacating the earlier ruling, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that Allen had a right to appeal the modification and that the criminal court lacked authority to alter the final order except to correct clerical errors under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Court concluded the 2012 dismissal order remained intact and final.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether a surety company remained liable on a $10,000 bond posted for a defendant arrested on DUI second offense and driving on a revoked license charges after a grand jury later indicted the defendant on DUI fourth offense. The trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture when the defendant failed to appear, and the surety moved to alter or amend. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the surety remained obligated under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-11-130(a)(1) and -138(b), as well as the precedent in Young v. State, because the charges were of the same nature and had not been resolved by any statutory disposition that would discharge the bond; the upgrade in offense level did not alter the surety's liability. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals in part, affirmed the trial court's forfeiture ruling on the DUI bond, and reinstated the full judgment against Rader Bonding Company.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Jeffery Todd Burke against Sparta Newspapers after an article quoted statements from a White County detective about Burke's alleged theft from a youth football league, which the detective made during a private, one-on-one conversation with the reporter rather than in any public setting. The trial court granted summary judgment to the newspaper based on the fair report privilege, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the fair report privilege applies only to reports of public proceedings or official government actions that have been made public and does not extend to nonpublic conversations between a reporter and a law enforcement officer. The decision remanded the case for further proceedings without resolving other potential defenses.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case concerns the constitutionality of a warrantless, suspicionless search of probationer Angela Payton Hamm's home by law enforcement officers in Tennessee, which led to criminal charges against her and her husband. The majority upheld the search, but Justice Clark dissents, arguing that probationers have greater privacy expectations than parolees under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, so reasonable suspicion is required. The dissent emphasizes that the probation search condition was understood by officers to mandate reasonable suspicion, which the State failed to establish, and that the evidence should therefore be suppressed. It concludes that the search violated state and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Hassan Falah Al Mutory, a defendant convicted of reckless homicide died while his direct appeal was pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals; his counsel sought to apply the doctrine of abatement ab initio from Carver v. State to vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to decide whether that doctrine should still apply. The court held that the doctrine must be abandoned because of subsequent changes in Tennessee public policy emphasizing victims' rights under the state constitution. It therefore dismissed the appeal as moot and reinstated the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence in the record that any interest would benefit from allowing the appeal to proceed. The decision overruled the intermediate appellate court's application of abatement ab initio.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a defendant convicted of reckless homicide appealed his conviction on evidentiary and sufficiency grounds, but died before the Court of Criminal Appeals could rule. The issue before the Tennessee Supreme Court was whether to apply the doctrine of abatement ab initio from Carver v. State, which would vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment as if the defendant had never been charged. The court overruled that precedent, holding that changes in Tennessee public policy favoring victims' rights under article I, section 35 of the state constitution rendered abatement ab initio incompatible with current jurisprudence. Because the record showed no interest that would benefit from continuing the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot and reinstated the trial court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disciplinary proceedings against a Tennessee attorney who represented a plaintiff in a federal personal injury lawsuit. The attorney submitted an itemized request for attorney fees and costs to the federal district court that falsely attributed paralegal work as his own, included a false declaration about keeping contemporaneous time records, and sought grossly exaggerated fees beyond the scope of the court's sanction order; he later reaffirmed these false statements under testimony. A Hearing Panel found violations of multiple Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, including those on fees, candor to the tribunal, fairness to opposing parties, and misconduct, and imposed a one-year suspension plus ethics education. The trial court modified the sanction to disbarment under ABA Standards, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed that judgment, concluding that the knowing dishonesty to the court warranted disbarment given the aggravating factors.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, Bradley James Cox filed a post-divorce petition in the Knox County Circuit Court seeking modification of a parenting plan and emergency relief, with allegations about the child's care that the opposing party later argued amounted to claims of dependency and neglect. The Circuit Court modified the parenting plan in Cox's favor, but the Court of Appeals later addressed whether those allegations divested the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction in favor of juvenile court. While the appeal was pending, the Tennessee General Assembly amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-103 to clarify that circuit courts retain jurisdiction over such domestic relations matters unless a pleading is filed or relief is sought in juvenile court to invoke its exclusive original jurisdiction, and the amendment applied to all pending cases. The Supreme Court held that because no action was taken in juvenile court, the Circuit Court retained continuing, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under title 36. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Circuit Court's judgment.

family lawprocedure