Sharon Gail Lee

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.

criminal lawcivil rights

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.

procedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

civil rights

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.

elections

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.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller, the defendant received a death sentence for first-degree murder after shooting and killing a store clerk during an attempted robbery. Justice Lee concurred in affirming the convictions for first-degree murder and related offenses but dissented from the decision to uphold the death sentence, concluding that Miller should instead receive a sentence of life imprisonment. The opinion applies the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, which bars excessive or disproportionate sentences, and relies on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) requiring comparative review of similar cases. It reasons that Miller's crime and culpability align more closely with cases resulting in life or life-without-parole sentences than with those imposing death, placing the sentence outside the narrow category reserved for the most extreme offenders.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against attorney Charles Edward Walker for multiple violations of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his conduct in a chancery court tax sale redemption matter, his failure to comply with a court injunction, and his omission of prior disciplinary history and criminal contempt findings in a pro hac vice application. A Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel found violations of Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, and 8.4 and recommended a three-year suspension (two years active, one on probation). The trial court affirmed the panel's decision, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, Affordable Construction Services, and an insurance company over whether the contractor could sue the insurer for failing to name it as a payee on an insurance proceeds check issued to the property owner after damage to insured property. The contractor claimed the insurer violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-111, which requires naming the contractor as payee when damages exceed $1,000 on uncompleted contracts. The Tennessee Supreme Court, answering a certified question from federal district court, held that the statute does not provide a private right of action to the contractor. The court reasoned that the statute lacks an express grant of such a right and that the legislature did not intend an implied right, as the law is regulatory in nature with enforcement through governmental remedies like misdemeanors rather than private lawsuits.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves the Tennessee Supreme Court's review of Michael Rimmer's death sentence for first-degree murder convictions. Justice Lee concurs in the result upholding the sentence but disagrees with the majority's proportionality analysis under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1)(D). She criticizes the approach from State v. Bland that limits comparison to only cases where the State sought the death penalty, instead favoring review of all first-degree murder cases resulting in life imprisonment or death. After applying this broader comparison, Lee determines that Rimmer's background and crimes align more closely with cases resulting in death sentences, making the penalty neither excessive nor disproportionate.

criminal law

This case involved attorney Larry E. Parrish challenging the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility's assessment of over $10,000 in costs from a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in 2013, after his reinstatement to practice in 2018. Parrish argued that the costs should have been assessed under the 2014 version of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 rather than the pre-2014 version in effect when the case began. A hearing panel rejected his petition to revoke the cost assessment, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court held that pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3 governs cost assessments in disciplinary matters initiated before January 1, 2014, because the order adopting the revised rule made it apply prospectively to new filings and lacked any retroactive language for costs comparable to the reinstatement provisions. Parrish was ordered to pay the costs within 45 days or risk revocation of his reinstatement.

procedure

This case involved a petition by a mother and stepfather to terminate a father's parental rights to their daughter on grounds of abandonment through willful failure to visit and support, with a request for stepfather adoption. The trial court granted the termination, applying the missing witness rule due to the father's absence at trial and the unclean hands doctrine based on his false interrogatory answers, while also finding termination in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the missing witness rule was misapplied in this non-jury context, the unclean hands doctrine did not apply because the father was defending against statutory claims without seeking equitable relief and the misconduct was collateral, and the evidence of abandonment fell short of clear and convincing. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the termination and dismissed the petition.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns a health care liability claim brought by the plaintiff after his wife's death, in which he sued two doctors but not their governmental employer, Erlanger hospital, due to errors in pre-suit notice and the running of the statute of limitations. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors, holding that the plaintiff could not obtain a judgment against them under the Governmental Tort Liability Act without also suing Erlanger. The concurring/dissenting justice agrees with the result but disagrees that the defendants' general answers sufficiently alleged comparative fault to trigger the ninety-day amendment period under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, noting that the defendants violated their statutory duty under section 29-26-121(a)(5) to disclose other potential defendants without any penalty for noncompliance. The justice concludes that no statutory mechanism allowed the plaintiff to add Erlanger after the limitations period expired.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the Tennessee Supreme Court's review of a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Winston Bradshaw Sitton for violations of Rules of Professional Conduct sections 8.4(a) and (d). The majority opinion addressed the hearing panel's findings on the merits, upheld the violations, and increased the recommended punishment to a four-year suspension from practice with one year active and the rest on probation. Justice Lee concurs solely in the punishment increase but declines to join the other sections, explaining that under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 15.4 and the court's prior order, the scope of review was limited to assessing the adequacy and uniformity of the punishment after neither party appealed the hearing panel's findings.

procedure

This case concerned a products liability lawsuit brought by Carolyn Coffman after her husband developed fatal mesothelioma from workplace exposure to asbestos in replacement parts added to valves and other equipment made by the defendants. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturers, holding they had no duty under the Tennessee Products Liability Act to warn about dangers from asbestos components integrated post-sale by third parties. The dissent contended that the Act imposes a duty to warn when a manufacturer knows or should know its product requires aftermarket asbestos parts to function properly and that such integration will likely render the final product unreasonably dangerous. The dissent's core reasoning centered on the statutory text, the foreseeability of the integration, and the principle that the presence or absence of warnings is typically a question for the jury rather than summary disposition.

torts & liability

In this case, seven District Attorneys General and two Baby Doe plaintiffs sued pharmaceutical companies under Tennessee's Drug Dealer Liability Act, alleging that the companies knowingly participated in the illegal drug market by flooding East Tennessee communities with prescription opioids, leading to widespread addiction, diversion to the black market, and harms including in utero exposure. The trial court dismissed the suit on the pleadings, but the Court of Appeals reversed, prompting review by the Tennessee Supreme Court on issues of standing and the Act's applicability. The Supreme Court held that the District Attorneys lacked statutory standing because the Act does not name them as authorized plaintiffs, while the Baby Doe plaintiffs stated a viable claim by alleging facts that, taken as true at this stage, showed the companies knowingly facilitated the marketing or distribution of opioids into the illegal market.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned whether a quitclaim deed omitting a wife's name as grantor could be equitably reformed to transfer her retained interest in property held as tenants by the entirety, which would extinguish recorded judgment liens held by two banks against the original owners. Purchasers of the property and their lender sought a declaratory judgment for reformation based on mutual mistake after discovering the defect and liens. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals in denying reformation. The court held that the equities did not favor relief because the petitioners acquired the property with constructive notice of the wife's interest and the banks' liens, and reformation would prejudice the lienholders' recorded rights.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned Tennessee voters' challenges to state election officials' interpretation of absentee ballot eligibility requirements under Tennessee Code Annotated section 2-6-201(5)(C) and (D) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority permitted absentee voting for those with underlying health conditions that increase vulnerability to the virus, applying the Anderson-Burdick standard and finding a moderate burden on voting rights. Justice Lee concurs in that result for voters with such conditions but dissents in part, reasoning that the ongoing public health emergency, with rising cases and no statewide mask mandate, justifies extending absentee mail voting to all qualified voters to avoid forcing an untenable choice between in-person voting risks and forfeiting the right to vote. The dissent highlights that most other states allow broader mail voting options amid the crisis and that evidence of fraud is unpersuasive.

electionscivil rightshealthcare

This case involved a health care liability claim by Lataisha Jackson against Gould’s Day Spa & Salon for negligent training, supervision, and retention of a massage therapist who allegedly sexually assaulted her during a massage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the salon because Jackson had not filed a certificate of good faith with her complaint as required by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act when expert testimony is needed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed, holding that the common knowledge exception applied because the claim turned on whether the salon ignored prior customer complaints of inappropriate conduct by the therapist, which laypersons could evaluate without expert testimony on massage industry standards. As a result, no certificate of good faith was required, and the summary judgment was vacated.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved plaintiffs injured in car accidents who received hospital treatment but whose insurers were not billed; instead, the hospitals filed liens for the full undiscounted charges against the plaintiffs' tort claims. The plaintiffs sued the hospitals under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the undiscounted liens constituted unfair or deceptive acts affecting trade or commerce. Lower courts dismissed the claims, ruling that the Act did not apply because the underlying transactions involved medical treatment. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act covers health care providers when acting in their business capacities, such as billing and collection, rather than in their professional medical roles, and that the plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action.

business & regulatoryhealthcare