The case concerned Tyshon Booker, who was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery for crimes committed at age sixteen and automatically sentenced under Tennessee law to life imprisonment, requiring at least fifty-one years of incarceration. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that this mandatory life sentence for a juvenile homicide offender violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because it provides no opportunity to consider the offender's age or other circumstances. The court's reasoning relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents requiring individualized sentencing for juveniles convicted of homicide. To remedy the violation without creating a new scheme, the court left the sixty-year sentence in place but directed that Booker receive an individualized parole hearing after serving between twenty-five and thirty-six years, consistent with prior statutory release eligibility provisions.
This case concerned a disciplinary proceeding against Tennessee attorney Candes Vonniest Prewitt, who represented two clients in a personal injury lawsuit arising from a 2014 nightclub shooting while maintaining an on-and-off romantic relationship with one client. The Board of Professional Responsibility's hearing panel determined that Prewitt violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures to obtain a written conflict waiver, meet expert disclosure deadlines resulting in the exclusion of witnesses, communicate material developments to clients, and properly withdraw from representation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's judgment upholding the hearing panel's imposition of a thirty-day suspension with conditions for reinstatement, as well as the assessment of costs, after reviewing the record for compliance with the applicable professional conduct standards.
The case concerned a plaintiff who successfully completed a judicial diversion agreement resolving criminal charges in McNairy County Circuit Court, obtained the state's consent, and received a final expungement order directing destruction of related records. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation refused to comply with the order on the ground that the offenses were ineligible for expungement. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the TBI must comply with a final expungement order and reversed the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the order became final and binding under principles of res judicata after thirty days with no appeal, that the district attorney general had authority to bind the state, and that eligibility determinations rest with courts rather than the TBI.
This case involves a challenge by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and Shelby County to the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program, which allows eligible students to use state and local education funds for private school expenses. The opinion concurs that the plaintiffs have standing because the program impairs their sovereign authority over local school funding as protected by the Home Rule Amendment. It dissents from the majority's conclusion on the merits, reasoning that the Act substantially affects the counties' ability to self-govern on local matters despite facially applying only to local education agencies, and thus requires local approval under the Amendment to be valid. Without such approval, the opinion concludes the Act is unconstitutional.
The case involved a challenge by Tennessee voters to the state's Senate reapportionment plan, which created four non-consecutively numbered senatorial districts in Davidson County in violation of article II, section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution. A three-judge panel granted a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the plan, allowing the General Assembly fifteen days to remedy the defect, and extending the candidate qualifying deadline to May 5, 2022. On appeal, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the panel erred in balancing harms and public interest. The dissenting justice concluded that the panel applied the correct legal standards for injunctive relief, reached a reasonable decision supported by evidence that the extended deadline would not disrupt other election processes, and did not abuse its discretion, so the injunction should be affirmed.
In this case, Donna Cooper sued Dr. Mason Wesley Mandy and related medical entities after breast reduction surgery left her injured, claiming the doctor and staff intentionally misrepresented his qualifications as a board-certified plastic surgeon, thereby invalidating her consent and amounting to medical battery and intentional misrepresentation. The defendants sought dismissal for the plaintiffs' failure to meet the pre-suit notice and certificate requirements of Tennessee's Health Care Liability Act. Lower courts held the Act inapplicable because the misrepresentations occurred before treatment and did not directly involve negligent care. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the Act's broad definition of a health care liability action encompasses any claim alleging injury related to health care services by a provider, regardless of the specific legal theory such as battery or misrepresentation.