The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that when a trial judge misunderstands the role as “13th juror” in a civil case, appellate courts should send the case back to the trial judge to review the case instead of automatically requiring the parties to go through a new trial. If the trial court is unable to fulfill the role of 13th juror on remand, only then should it order a new trial. Under the “13th juror” rule, the trial judge independently reviews the evidence and decides whether he agrees with the verdict of the 12 jurors. If he disagrees, the parties must re-try the case. The court also used the case to find that a claim of unjust enrichment does not require a voluntary conferral of a benefit, reversing the Court of Appeals and upholding the trial court’s dismissal of unjust enrichment claims. In addition, the court declined Plaintiffs’ invitation to create a new tort for the misappropriation of a statutory right of redemption. 

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that a defamation and false light suit filed by Bill Charles against Donna McQueen must be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), the state's version of an anti-SLAPP statute. Charles was the president of the Durham Farms homeowners’ association in Hendersonville and a consultant for Freehold Communities, the company that developed the community. In 2020, residents petitioned local officials and some, including McQueen, wrote negative Google reviews on Freehold's Nashville regional office webpage, hoping to stop a proposed "rental-only" unit section of the community. Charles sued McQueen over the review, asserting claims for defamation and false light.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has amended Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13, sections 2 and 3, to reflect a $10 increase in the hourly reimbursement rate for indigent representation, along with a proportionate increase in the caps on the total amount a court-appointed attorney may earn per case. The changes are effective as of July 1 and are based on the Tennessee General Assembly’s recent approval of an additional $8.6 million in recurring funding for the indigent representation program, increasing the hourly rate to $60. Read the new language. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) had requested $26.145 million from the state legislature, which would have raised the hourly rate to $80. The TBA supported that request and remains committed to working with stakeholders to secure additional resources to fairly compensate lawyers who do this important work. To learn more about this issue and advocacy efforts on behalf of Tennessee lawyers, read the TBA's statement about the funding or visit the TBA’s Indigent Representation Resources webpage.

A news item in yesterday's issue of TBA Today inadvertently omitted the docket number to be cited when filing a comment about a proposed amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 10.1. Comments should be submitted by July 26 and should reference docket number ADM2024-00922. Comments may be emailed to Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner or mailed to 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today issued an order soliciting comments on a proposal from the Board of Professional Responsibility to amend Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 10.1 regarding the confidentiality of attorneys’ contact information. On June 18, the board petitioned the court to amend its rules to “classify as confidential and not public record the personal addresses and contact information Tennessee attorneys provide to the board.” Comments should be submitted by July 26 and should reference docket number ADM2024-00922. Comments may be emailed to Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner or mailed to 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has clarified standards for determining when a trial court may consider a prisoner's petition to consider newly discovered evidence. Under Tennessee law, the petition, an error coram nobis petition, must be filed within one year after conviction. If not filed in that timeframe, the petition may only be considered if it presents newly discovered evidence that clearly and convincingly shows the defendant did not commit the crime of which they were convicted. The case stems from Thomas Clardy's 2007 conviction and life sentence for his role in a Davidson County shooting that left one person dead and two others wounded. Today's decision reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and affirmed the post-conviction court’s dismissal of Clardy’s petition, finding that the presented evidence was not a valid basis to extend the one-year time limit. The decision was authored by Chief Justice Holly Kirby. Justice Jeff Bivins concurred in the court’s judgment but wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justice Sharon G. Lee.

A new episode of the NashVillager Podcast from Nashville Public Radio highlights the Tennessee Supreme Court and how it works. Listen to it here.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an order soliciting comments on a proposed change to Rule 31(15)(a)(5) of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court. On May 16, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission filed a petition asking the court to consider adopting an amendment to provide a training waiver to mediators whose credentials have lapsed. Comments on the proposed change should be submitted by Aug. 2 and reference Docket #ADM2024-00714. Comments should be emailed to Clerk James Hivner or mailed to 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on May 22 in Cookeville before a group of rising high school seniors participating in the Tennessee American Legion’s Boys State program. The event is part of the court’s SCALES program, which educates students about the Tennessee legal system and judicial branch functions. Students will hear two cases beginning at 9 a.m. CST: Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee and State v. William Rimmel III. The proceedings also will be livestreamed on the court’s YouTube page. Read more about the cases.

The Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) today filed comments with the Tennessee Supreme Court in response to an order soliciting comments on proposed changes to its Rule 13, regarding the Appointment, Qualifications and Compensation of Counsel for Indigent Defendants. As noted in the order, the proposed revisions did not include any adjustments to the compensation rates and/or caps for appointed attorneys representing the indigent (which will be addressed later). Rather, they addressed the potential financial obligations of a child's parents, legal custodians or guardians when a guardian ad litem is appointed. The proposed changes also addressed the process for designating a case as complex or extended. The TBA’s comments focused on the financial responsibility provisions, the proposed procedure and deadline for requesting a review of compensation in non-capital cases, and the use of alternative agreements for providing representation to indigent persons in some situations. Read the full comments.