The Tennessee Supreme Court has extended the deadline for commenting on its Sept. 16 order from March 16 to April 30. The order sought feedback from the legal community about potential changes to regulation of the profession “to ensure that all Tennesseans have access to affordable quality legal service.” On Jan. 13, the Tennessee Bar Association filed a motion requesting that the court extend the deadline for comments to June 1. Comments now should be submitted by April 30 via email or by mail to James Hivner, Clerk, Re: Regulatory Reform, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219. Comments should reference docket No. ADM2025-01403. The TBA also is seeking feedback. Comments to its Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force should be submitted via email to townhall@tnbar.org. Visit TBA's Legal Access & Regulatory Reform resource page to learn more about the areas the court is reviewing.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected proposed amendments to Rule 21 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that would have required Tennessee licensed attorneys to complete one hour of CLE credit every three years to address mental health and substance abuse disorders. The amendments were requested by the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program and Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services. The court said it received comments on the proposal from the law firm of Baker Donelson, the Board of Professional Responsibility, the Commission on Continuing Legal Education, the Knoxville Bar Association, Minnesota Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, the North Carolina Lawyers Assistance Program, Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services and many individual attorneys. Read the court's order.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued two orders announcing amendments to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appellate package would affect Rules 20B “Public Access To Appellate Court Filings And Privacy Protection” and 27 “Content of Briefs” while the criminal package would impact Rule 41 “Search And Seizure.” Amendments will take effect July 1 subject to approval by the General Assembly.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated workers’ compensation benefits in Edwards v. Peoplease LLC et al. The plaintiff in the case, Jo Carol Edwards, drove a truck for Peoplease. In 2020, one of the tires on the truck blew out, and the vehicle went down an embankment and crashed into a bridge. Edwards was injured and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. After multiple appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied benefits, saying that Edwards failed to counter her physician's determination that the accident did not qualify for compensation under Tennessee law. According to a news release, the Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed, saying Edwards was entitled to benefits because her work accident aggravated a preexisting condition and that aggravation necessitated knee replacement surgery. It also clarified the circumstances under that “aggravation” injuries are compensable under workers’ compensation law. Read the opinion.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in Brian Coblentz et al. v. Tractor Supply Company that workers’ compensation law does not bar an employee of a product vendor from suing a retail store for injuries sustained on the job. Brian Coblentz, employed by Stanley National, was injured when part of a display rack fell on his head while he was stocking merchandise. He received workers’ compensation benefits from Stanley National before filing a tort lawsuit against Tractor Supply, alleging the store was negligent and its display rack was in an “unreasonably dangerous and unsafe condition.” Tractor Supply argued it was Coblentz’s “statutory employer” and therefore immune from the suit, but the court held that the companies’ relationship was a product vendor-purchaser arrangement, not a contractor-subcontractor relationship, and that any work Coblentz performed was incidental to the sale of merchandise, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its January docket in Knoxville on Jan. 8, 2026. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page. Beginning at 9 a.m. EST, the court will hear two cases: Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota a/s/o Campus Chalet Inc. v. East Tennessee Sprinkler Company Inc., which involves the application of Tennessee’s four-year statute of repose for construction-related property damage claims, and Preston Garner et al. v. Southern Baptist Convention et al., which raises questions about defamation, church autonomy and the Tennessee Public Participation Act.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Dec. 10 rejected two constitutional challenges to the state’s 2022 redistricting of legislative districts. A challenge from Gibson County voter Gary Wygant claimed the new House map was unconstitutional because it split the county into two districts, while a challenge from Davidson County voter Francie Hunt claimed the Senate map was unconstitutional because it did not consecutively number the county’s four districts for that body. During trial, the state argued that the challengers had limited or no standing to sue.

The three-judge panel issued a divided opinion holding that: (1) Wygant had standing to bring a district-specific challenge to the House plan; (2) the House plan was constitutional; (3) Hunt had standing to challenge the Senate plan; and (4) the Senate plan was unconstitutional. The panel dismissed Wygant’s challenge to the House plan with prejudice. The panel entered judgment for Hunt as to the Senate plan and ordered the General Assembly to adopt a constitutionally compliant Senate plan by Jan. 31, 2024.

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting Wygant’s district-specific challenge on the merits, reversed the judgment concluding that Hunt had standing, and vacated the judgment holding the Senate map unconstitutional. Read more about the decision in a news release from the Administrative Office of the Courts or view the opinions in the case.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the defendants in a legal malpractice and fraud action were not entitled to dismissal of the lawsuits under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA) because the lawsuits were not filed in response to the defendants’ exercise of the right to petition. Access the press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted amendments to two rules last week. In the first order, the court announced the adoption of an amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 12.4(E) to set forth the procedures and deadlines for litigation that could affect the method or timing of an execution when the litigation is filed after an execution date is set. In the second order, the court announced an amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 54 to add a new type of civil complaint required to be heard by a three-judge panel. The court explained that the action was taken after the General Assembly passed and the governor signed new legislation amending Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 20. Both orders were adopted on Dec. 5 and took effect immediately.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected a petition to amend Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 10.1 to allow bar associations in the state to access contact information of licensed Tennessee attorneys from the Board of Professional Responsibility. The TBA filed a petition seeking the change in August after the court amended the rule to limit public access to attorneys’ contact information.