Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Southern Auto Source Finance, LLC v. Airways Towing & Recovery, LLC
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-06-22
This case concerned whether a non-attorney member of an LLC could file a notice of appeal from a general sessions court judgment on the company's behalf after losing a breach-of-contract and related claims case. The Court of Appeals held that the filing was invalid, reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss the appeal, and remanded for dismissal of the appeal. The court reasoned that Tennessee law treats LLCs as separate legal entities that may appear in court proceedings only through licensed attorneys, so a non-attorney member's filing constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and fails to confer jurisdiction, even in general sessions appeals where Rule 11 does not apply and statutes bar dismissal for mere informalities.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Daniel Burstiner v. Brian Boyd
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-06-10
This case arose from Daniel Burstiner’s pro se legal malpractice suit against attorneys Brian Boyd and Bennett Wills, alleging deficient representation in an underlying construction contract arbitration that resulted in an award against him. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding the claim accrued upon entry of the arbitration award in February 2023 and that the allegations failed to state a viable malpractice claim. Burstiner then sought relief from the dismissal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, asserting lack of notice of the dismissal hearing, which the trial court denied after crediting opposing declarations on service; his subsequent Rule 59.04 motion to reconsider that denial was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the post-judgment motions because Burstiner failed to demonstrate a meritorious claim overcoming the timeliness bar or other grounds for extraordinary relief, and any procedural irregularities in the Rule 60 hearing did not constitute reversible error.
proceduretorts & liability
Kevin Matthew Woodruff v. Jessica Ann Woodruff
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-06-09
This case involves a post-judgment dispute in a child custody proceeding between Kevin Matthew Woodruff and Jessica Ann Woodruff in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. After the trial court entered a final order on January 22, 2026, and while a separate Rule 3 appeal was pending, Appellant Jessica Woodruff filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, alleging an appearance of bias based on the judge’s cumulative rulings, handling of the record, and post-judgment decisions; the trial court denied the motion on May 4, 2026. Appellant then pursued an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the petition did not include a copy of the motion to recuse filed in the trial court, as strictly required by Rule 10B § 2.03, leaving the court unable to evaluate the specific allegations or confirm compliance with other mandatory elements such as a supporting affidavit or declaration. The court noted that a pro se litigant’s status does not excuse failure to meet these procedural requirements.
family lawprocedure
In Re Heavenlee J.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-05-26
In the case of In re Heavenlee J., the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of father Timothy J. to his daughter, who was removed from the parents’ care shortly after birth in February 2023 due to nutritional neglect and failure to thrive and who has severe ongoing medical conditions requiring specialized care. The juvenile court terminated the father’s rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, after he failed to appear at the final hearing despite notice and appointment of counsel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the termination, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that clear and convincing evidence supported each ground as well as the finding that termination served the child’s best interest, based on the father’s minimal visitation, lack of support or engagement with the child’s needs, criminal history affecting his availability, and inability to provide appropriate care given the child’s medical fragility and his own circumstances.
family lawcriminal lawprocedure
Jo Kelly Stephenson v. 2300 & 2306 SSR Property Trust
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-05-21
The case involves plaintiff Jo Kelly Stephenson's appeal from the Davidson County Chancery Court's denial of her motion to recuse Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal in an underlying civil dispute against 2300 & 2306 SSR Property Trust and other defendants. Stephenson, who had been represented by counsel, sought recusal on grounds including alleged bias from her lack of personal notice of filings, the court's handling of her ex parte email about terminating her attorney, failure to address claimed attorney misconduct, procedural irregularities with the e-filing system, and perceived disparate treatment of her pro se status. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the motion failed to show any extrajudicial source of bias or pervasive impartiality that would require disqualification under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The court reasoned that the judge had no personal connection to the parties or facts, that complaints largely concerned the plaintiff's former counsel, the clerk's office, or routine procedural matters rather than the judge's conduct, and that adverse rulings or disagreements with court processes alone do not establish grounds for recusal.
procedureproperty
Valesia Kennard v. Mid-South Transportation Management, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 2026-05-18
In this case, employee Valesia Kennard was injured in a workplace assault by a former coworker and filed both a workers’ compensation claim and a subsequent tort lawsuit against her employer, Mid-South Transportation Management. After the employer denied liability on the grounds that the assault stemmed from a personal dispute, the parties reached a “doubtful and disputed” settlement of the workers’ compensation claim for $11,250, which a workers’ compensation judge approved under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-240(e). Kennard then moved for partial summary judgment in her tort action, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law did not bar her suit because the settlement left the issue of compensability unresolved and her injuries were not compensable. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory settlement constituted a workers’ compensation remedy that triggered the exclusive remedy bar. The court reasoned that the statute expressly permits such settlements without requiring resolution of compensability, the agreement settled “all issues” and waived the right to a compensation hearing, and Kennard had therefore received a remedy under the law.
labor & employmenttorts & liability