The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in several cases in Nashville on Feb. 12. Beginning at 10:30 a.m. CST at the Supreme Court building, the court will hear the case of Ashley Denson ex rel. Bobbie J. Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge et al.  A second case, James B. Johnson v. Bd. of Prof. Resp. of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., will be submitted to the court on brief. Then beginning at 1:30 p.m., the court will hear oral arguments in two cases — Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Co. and State v. Shenessa Sokolosky — in the historic Supreme Court courtroom at the state Capitol. All proceedings will be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page. Read more about the cases in a release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified in an opinion today that holding shareholders responsible for a corporation's actions, known as "piercing the corporate veil," requires three elements: control, wrongdoing and causation. According to a press release, the court also ruled that trial courts must ensure a complaint sufficiently articulates a claim for the relief sought before entering a default judgment. Charles Youree Jr. filed a lawsuit seeking to hold two companies responsible for a monetary judgment he had obtained against another company. When the two companies failed to respond, the trial court awarded him a default judgment. The companies later moved to set aside the judgment, arguing Youree’s complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that while a defendant’s failure to answer does admit the factual allegations in a complaint, it does not mandate a default judgment. Instead, courts must ensure that the admitted facts are sufficient to establish a valid claim. When applying the three-prong test to this case, the court found that Youree’s complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled today that a plaintiff who did not refile a negligence lawsuit against Vanderbilt University Medical Center within the required one-year time frame could not assert an extension based on the Health Care Liability Act. According to a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts, the case began when Clayton D. Richards, a former patient at the medical center, filed a negligence lawsuit in 2014 after giving pre-suit notice as required by law. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, allowing Richards the opportunity to refile the complaint within a year. However, instead of refiling within that time, Richards argued that the act provided a 120-day extension under the Saving Statute, making his lawsuit timely. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, and in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the claims were untimely.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order on Jan. 17 soliciting comments on proposed changes to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, sections 26.4 and 33.1. The deadline for submitting comments is March 3. Written comments should reference docket No. ADM2025-00078 and be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to Clerk James Hivner, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219-1407, RE: Proposed Amendments to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, sections 26.4 & 33.1. The changes primarily deal with the process for appealing the judgment of a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed allegations from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) violated the Americans with Disability Act by discriminating against two bar applicants “due to a substance use disorder or mental health disorder.” In a news release, the court says it “strongly disagrees” with the assertion that either agency discriminated against applicants based on health status or disability. “Both TBLE and TLAP follow well-established administrative processes that are designed to avoid discrimination against any applicant.” The statement continues that the court, TBLE and TLAP “have been and remain committed to treating persons with disabilities, including bar applicants with disabilities, with dignity and respect, and in compliance with all legal rights afforded to such applicants.” Read the full statement.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that a prior conviction for robbery can increase the penalty for a criminal defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm but only if a jury finds that the prior robbery was committed with the use of violence. In the case of Christopher Oberton Curry Jr., who was convicted in 2022 of unlawful firearm possession after a felony conviction for robbery, the trial court had instructed the jury that robbery was a "crime of violence." The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge erred in making a determination that the prior robbery had been violent and reduced the conviction. The court said that a jury should have made that determination. Read more about the opinion from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

In a new opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed a damages award to a man who sustained serious injuries after falling on a pedestrian bridge at his apartment complex. The court ruled that the owner and operator of the complex, Mid-America Apartments (MAA), had a duty to maintain safe conditions on the bridge. The central issue in the case was whether the owner could have discovered the dangerous condition beforehand through proper diligence. The court concluded that the condition of the bridge was a “general or continuing condition” that was reasonably foreseeable. In a 4-1 decision, the court upheld the trial court’s damages award of more than $2 million to the plaintiff. The decision by the court reaffirmed its long-standing precedent governing premises liability cases in Tennessee set forth in Blair v. W. Town Mall, the Administrative Office of the Courts reports in a release. Justice Sarah K. Campbell dissented, arguing that MAA lacked constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition because there was no evidence that a similar issue had occurred previously on the bridge or elsewhere on the property.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has amended Rule 17 of its rules to update the uniform judgment document that must be used in all cases falling within the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. Rule 17 provides for a uniform judgment document to be used in all trial courts of record in all cases brought under the act. The new form must be used beginning Jan. 15. It can be accessed in today's order.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has two cases set for its Jan. 8, 2025, docket in Knoxville: Matthew Long v. Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Fund, and Brett Houghton et al. v. Malibu Boats LLC. Read more about the cases in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts. The cases will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building, 535-599 Main St. SW, Knoxville 37902, beginning at 9 a.m. EST and will be livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Friday issued an opinion in Pharma Conference Education Inc. v. State rejecting the state’s argument that its contract with Pharma Inc. was not enforceable because the company’s promise to perform was “illusory.” The court instead held that Pharma’s promise to provide the University of Tennessee Health Science Center as many continuing education programs as feasible was a real obligation and therefore adequate consideration for the contract. The state had sought to terminate the agreement, but Pharma sued for breach of contract. Chief Justice Holly Kirby concurred in the majority decision but wrote separately to argue that depositions in the case could not be used to contradict the contract. Read more about the opinions from the Administrative Office of the Courts.