This case involved a trust established for a minor beneficiary from a personal injury settlement, where the trustee signed an investment account agreement containing a predispute arbitration clause with a broker. The beneficiary sued the broker and others, and the broker moved to compel arbitration under the agreement. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed; on further appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and the trust instrument authorized the trustee to enter the arbitration agreement. The court reasoned that trustees have broad powers to manage trust assets and resolve disputes, and that a third-party beneficiary seeking to enforce a contract must also accept its burdens, including arbitration, but only for claims that seek to enforce the account agreement itself. The court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated the order compelling arbitration of all claims, and remanded for the trial court to determine which claims, if any, are subject to arbitration.
This case involved a public records request by media outlets seeking access to police investigative files related to a pending criminal matter in Nashville. The court held that such open criminal investigative files are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act. The core reasoning was that release could undermine the criminal justice system by exposing confidential sources, victims' personal information, and sensitive details that might compromise ongoing investigations, taint jury pools, or endanger witnesses and victims, consistent with prior precedent interpreting Rule 16(a)(2) as barring disclosure of files relevant to pending criminal actions. The concurrence emphasized that this approach aligns with legislative intent reflected in related statutes protecting victim information post-conviction.
In Circle C Construction, LLC v. D. Sean Nilsen, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether a plaintiff could refile a lawsuit under the savings statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105(a), after a tolling agreement set a specific contractual filing deadline. The majority concluded that the refiled action was timely, reasoning that the agreement merely paused and extended the statutory limitations period and did not explicitly bar use of the savings statute. In this partial dissent, Justice Kirby argued that the savings statute applies only to actions commenced within a time limited by a rule or statute of limitation, not by a contractual substitute, so the refiled lawsuit was barred by the agreement's deadline.
The case involved a police captain who was terminated after reporting to the mayor that the police chief had pressured him to fix a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson, violating a department policy against ticket fixing. The officer sued the city under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing on illegal activity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the officer was discharged solely in retaliation for protected conduct, as the city's stated reasons—violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority—were either admissions of retaliation or pretextual. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in favor of the officer.
This case concerned a dispute between neighboring utility districts over water supply services. Reelfoot Utility District had provided water to Samburg Utility District under a series of contracts, including a 2008 agreement that explicitly expired on July 31, 2013; before expiration, Samburg arranged to purchase water from Hornbeak Utility District instead. Reelfoot sued to enjoin the new arrangement and claimed an ongoing obligation based on the prior contracts, a state statute, and Reelfoot's own infrastructure loans. The trial court granted summary judgment to Samburg and Hornbeak. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the contract's clear termination date controlled, no statute or other legal principle required renewal or perpetual service, and Reelfoot's loan decisions did not impose obligations on Samburg beyond the contract term.
The case involved a dispute between a general contractor, Anil Construction, Inc., and a subcontractor, Patrick McCollum d/b/a Pat's Custom Cabinets, over a contract for cabinetry installation in a new movie theater. The contractor sued for breach alleging untimely completion and defective work, while the subcontractor filed a counterclaim for failure to pay the contract balance. The trial court ruled in favor of the subcontractor and awarded damages, but the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court failed to issue the detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 for both the complaint and counterclaim, preventing effective appellate review, and remanded the case for compliance with that rule.