Gary R. Wade

The case concerns media organizations' request under the Tennessee Public Records Act for police records related to an ongoing aggravated rape prosecution against Vanderbilt football players. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court held that Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2) exempts all such records from public disclosure while the criminal case is pending. In this dissent, Justice Wade contends that the rule's plain language protects only work product and witness statements, not every police record, and that the victim's claims under the Victims' Bill of Rights and state constitutional provisions should be adjudicated by the chancery court. The dissent also notes that protective orders from the criminal court adequately address fair trial concerns and that post-conviction confidentiality statutes would not fully cover the victim's interests.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

This case concerns the application of the summary judgment standard in a lawsuit brought by Lea Ann Tatham against Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. The majority opinion adopted a federal standard recently established in Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis to resolve the summary judgment issue. Justice Wade, concurring in part and in the judgment, maintains his disagreement with the adoption of the new federal standard, as stated in his dissent in Rye, but agrees that the same outcome would result under the prior Tennessee standard.

procedure

This case concerns a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by Michelle Rye and her husband against a women's care center and related defendants in Tennessee state court. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court overruled prior precedents establishing the state's summary judgment standard under Byrd v. Hall and Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., adopting instead the federal Celotex standard that shifts the burden differently when a moving party shows the non-moving party cannot prove an essential element at trial. The core reasoning was that the longstanding Tennessee approach was incompatible with the text and history of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and frustrated the purposes of summary judgment. The provided opinion is a dissent arguing that the prior standard should be retained as consistent with state rules and history, that the majority improperly preempted a potential separation-of-powers challenge to a new statute, and that at least some claims should proceed to trial under either standard.

procedure

The case involved multiple groups of Pennsylvania-domiciled insurance companies that sued the State of Tennessee in the Claims Commission seeking refunds of retaliatory taxes they had paid under protest for tax years 2005-2007. The Commissioner and Court of Appeals denied the refunds, finding that certain Pennsylvania workers' compensation assessments created a financial burden on Tennessee insurers doing business in Pennsylvania, thereby justifying Tennessee's retaliatory tax under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-4-218. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the assessments are imposed directly on employer-policyholders (who pay them along with their premiums) rather than on the insurance companies themselves. The Court reasoned that the insurers' administrative role in collecting and remitting the payments does not constitute a qualifying burden or obligation that triggers the retaliatory tax statute.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case arose when plaintiff Richard Moreno, injured by a tree falling on his car from state property, filed a timely notice of claim against the State under the Claims Commission Act; after the claim transferred to the Claims Commission, the State amended its answer to allege comparative fault by the City of Clarksville, prompting Moreno to sue the City within ninety days under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. The majority held that section 20-1-119 did not apply because its text refers to allegations of fault in an answer to an "original complaint," not to a "notice of claim." In dissent, Justice Wade concluded that the notice of claim functions as the functional equivalent of an original complaint for purposes of the statute, so Moreno should have been permitted to add the City as a defendant. The core reasoning was that the statute is remedial, must be given a broad construction to allow claims to be decided on the merits, and that the majority's reading elevates technical form over substance contrary to longstanding Tennessee precedent.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a boundary dispute over land in Loudon County, Tennessee, originally acquired in 1918 by a husband and wife; after the husband's death, conveyances occurred under the mistaken belief that the widow held full title, resulting in later descendants claiming interests as tenants in common rather than by the entirety. The Baileys, who had possessed and used the disputed Tract I exclusively for decades without accounting to other heirs, sought to quiet title and later claimed title by prescription after third-party defendants (the Littletons) asserted inheritance rights. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied relief, finding no presumptive ouster due to the Littletons' ignorance of their co-tenancy. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed, holding that the Baileys established title by prescription because they had maintained exclusive, uninterrupted possession for over twenty years while claiming the land as their own, with no evidence of disability, permission, or rebuttal by the co-tenants. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

property

In State v. Knowles, the defendant was convicted of child rape after the prosecution presented evidence of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct against the minor victim. Tennessee law requires the State to elect a specific offense to ensure a unanimous jury verdict when multiple acts could support the charge. The prosecution elected an April 2005 incident at the victim's home involving cunnilingus, but the evidence for that date described fellatio instead, creating a factual mismatch in the election. The majority of the court affirmed the conviction on the basis that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, while the dissent argued that the inaccurate election undermined the constitutional right to unanimity and required a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a defendant charged with robbery of two adults and especially aggravated kidnapping of their three children during a single criminal episode in Lauderdale County. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court held that juries are not entitled to an instruction under State v. White requiring them to determine whether the removal or confinement of the children was essentially incidental to the robberies of the adults. In dissent, Justice Wade argued that the evidence could support either conclusion about whether the confinement went beyond what was necessary for the robberies, so the White instruction should have been given. He would have reversed the kidnapping convictions and remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions on that factual question.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Teats, the defendant and an accomplice robbed a restaurant manager of money while confining four employees in another area during the same brief episode, leading to convictions for robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping of the employees. The majority held that when kidnapping and robbery charges involve different victims in a single criminal episode, the jury need not receive the White instruction requiring it to determine whether the removal or confinement was essentially incidental to the accompanying offense. Dissenting, Justice Wade reasoned that due process principles from White, Anthony, and Dixon still require the instruction regardless of whether victims differ, as the evidence here could reasonably support either a finding that the confinement was merely incidental to the robbery or that it was independent and sufficient for separate kidnapping convictions, and thus the case should be remanded for retrial with proper jury guidance on the statutory elements.

criminal law

This case involved a widow suing a railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act after her husband, a longtime employee, developed lung cancer allegedly caused by workplace exposure to asbestos, diesel exhaust, and radioactive materials; the suit also claimed negligence per se for violating federal safety rules. A jury initially awarded $8.6 million but attributed 62% fault to the employee’s smoking, after which the trial court instructed that the safety violations barred any reduction for contributory fault, prompting the jury to amend the award to $3.2 million at 100%. The original judge later granted a new trial and recused, a substitute judge excluded the plaintiff’s experts and entered summary judgment for the railroad, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the expert causation evidence was admissible, that the original judge improperly ordered a new trial on liability grounds, and that the only prejudicial errors concerned the post-verdict instructions and the court’s failure to independently review damages, so it remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Terrence Justin Feaster, who was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment following a 2010 altercation with a victim at her residence. The trial court and a divided Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the separate convictions and consecutive sentences totaling over 26 years, finding no double jeopardy violation under the standard from State v. Watkins (2012). The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to address whether due process prohibited retroactive application of the Watkins Blockburger test to offenses committed before that decision, as the defendant argued for the prior Denton standard. The court held that Watkins was neither unexpected nor indefensible by reference to prior law, so due process did not bar its retroactive use, and the convictions were affirmed because each offense contained elements the other did not and the legislature did not intend to prohibit multiple punishments.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an employee who sued his employer for retaliatory discharge under both the common law and the Tennessee Public Protection Act, claiming he was fired after complaining to the company owner about the owner's decision to treat the employee's head injury with horse sutures instead of allowing proper medical care. The trial court dismissed the claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an employee does not qualify as a whistleblower entitled to protection unless the employee reports the alleged illegal activity to someone other than the person responsible for it, which may include reporting to an outside entity when the wrongdoer is the owner or highest-ranking officer. The court reasoned that merely informing the wrongdoer does not expose the misconduct or serve the public policy underlying whistleblower protections.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, the defendant was indicted for driving under the influence and violating the open container law after officers discovered an open alcoholic beverage and marijuana during a search of her vehicle following an investigatory stop. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that one officer had unreasonably prolonged the stop by waiting ten to fifteen minutes for backup, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer had a reasonable basis for extending the detention while awaiting a second officer for safety reasons given the presence of a passenger and the nature of the call. The court reasoned that the brief extension did not exceed the proper parameters of an investigatory stop, as the officers acted with reasonable diligence to confirm their suspicions based on the smell of alcohol and the defendant's appearance. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a delayed direct appeal by William Eugene Hall following his 1991-1992 convictions on two counts of felony murder, multiple counts of larceny, and first-degree burglary, for which he received a death sentence for one murder and a life sentence for the other, plus consecutive terms totaling eighty years. After the original appeal was affirmed, post-conviction proceedings revealed deficient representation on appeal, leading the Tennessee Supreme Court to grant a delayed appeal and remand for a new motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that denial, and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, finding the evidence sufficient to support all convictions, including that the murders occurred during a burglary, and that prior review of the death sentence required no revisiting. The court rejected claims of insufficient evidence regarding the timing and nature of the burglaries and larcenies, as well as constitutional challenges to the capital sentencing scheme.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a post-conviction challenge by Calvin Eugene Bryant to his convictions for selling ecstasy within a school zone, based on claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on facilitation as a lesser-included offense. The justice concurred with the majority that a conviction on the greater offense does not bar such an ineffective-assistance claim. However, the justice dissented from the denial of relief, concluding that counsel's performance was deficient because the evidence supported a facilitation instruction, counsel acknowledged the omission was not strategic, and there was a reasonable probability the jury would have convicted on the lesser offense if properly instructed. The core reasoning emphasized that trial courts must instruct on all warranted lesser-included offenses and that defense counsel has a duty to request them absent a reasonable strategy.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, thirty-six Tennessee death row inmates sued state officials challenging the constitutionality of the Department of Correction's one-drug lethal injection protocol, both facially and as applied, and sought discovery of the identities and locations of medical personnel and executioners involved in the protocol. The trial court and Court of Appeals had ordered disclosure under a protective order, but on interlocutory appeal the Supreme Court addressed whether the information was discoverable under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(1). Justice Wade concurred in the judgment that the identities were not discoverable, reasoning that they were irrelevant to the facial challenge and that privacy protections against annoyance or harassment outweighed any relevance in the as-applied claims, especially given the state's offer to provide qualifications and allow screened depositions. He declined to join the majority's discussion of ripeness and justiciability issues, viewing them as unnecessary dicta.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jacqueline Crank, who was charged with child neglect under Tennessee law for failing to obtain medical treatment for her minor daughter’s cancer, instead relying on spiritual treatment through prayer. Crank moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statutory “spiritual treatment” exemption was unconstitutionally vague and violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses under both federal and state constitutions. After a bench trial, the trial court found she did not qualify for the exemption, convicted her of child neglect, and imposed probation; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed without reaching the constitutional issues. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the exemption is not unconstitutionally vague and that it could be severed from the rest of the statute without invalidating the child neglect provisions, meaning her other constitutional challenges would not provide relief even if successful. The court therefore declined to address the Establishment or Equal Protection claims and affirmed the conviction, also ruling that a later religious freedom statute did not apply retroactively.

criminal lawreligious liberty

The case involved an employee who claimed workers' compensation benefits for gradual hearing loss sustained over 37 years working at a tire manufacturing plant, with significant impairment at frequencies above 3000 hertz not addressed by the AMA Guides. The trial court awarded a 30% vocational disability that incorporated an impairment rating for those higher frequencies based on expert testimony. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence established a hearing impairment above 3000 hertz and that the physician's method of assessment was appropriate and accepted in the medical community, as supported by peer-reviewed studies and objective test results.

labor & employment

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Orville Lambdin against his former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for gradual hearing loss sustained over 37 years of work as a tire builder, particularly at frequencies above 3000 hertz. After retiring, Lambdin filed suit when a benefit review conference failed to resolve the matter, and the trial court awarded him a 30% vocational disability rating that included impairment both within and above the 2000-3000 hertz range addressed by the AMA Guides. The employer appealed, arguing that the AMA Guides do not recognize hearing loss above 3000 hertz as an impairment and that the employee's physician lacked an accepted method for calculating it. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence established a compensable impairment above 3000 hertz and that the physician's methodology was supported by peer-reviewed studies and accepted within the medical community for rating such losses.

labor & employment

This case involved whether plaintiffs asserting health care liability claims must send a second pre-suit notice to defendants when refiling an identical complaint under the saving statute after a voluntary nonsuit. The majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court held that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1) requires written notice before each filing of a complaint, leading to dismissal of the refiled action without prejudice. The dissent interpreted the statute's plain language as requiring only one timely notice of potential claims to each defendant prior to suit, noting that the defendants had already received such notice of the same claims and parties more than sixty days earlier. The dissent concluded that the plaintiffs complied with the statute and that the action should be remanded for trial rather than dismissed.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability