The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that a general contractor may be required to pay penalties under state law for failure to pay a subcontractor, but remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration. The trial court had earlier found that a one-year statute of limitations applied to the subcontractor’s suit and that it was filed too late to be considered. The Supreme Court said subcontractor Snake Steel could potentially recover penalties for the one-year period before the suit was filed. Snake Steel had sued general contractor Holladay alleging that its failure to return a “retainage” of $18,000 once the project was completed violated the state’s Prompt Pay Act and should be subject to the act’s $300-per-day penalty.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today adopted an interim rule for special three-judge panels. Gov. Bill Lee signed into law late last month legislation that creates a three-judge panel to hear constitutional challenges to state laws, executive orders, regulations and legislative redistricting cases. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 54 lays out the applicability, composition, location and other procedures for the new panel.

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held virtual SCALES programs for Tennessee American Legion Boys State and American Legion Auxiliary Volunteer Girls State participants. The session for Boys State included a welcome message from Chief Justice Jeff Bivins and then delegates watched and discussed the virtual oral arguments in State of Tennessee v. Robert Allison, which involved money-laundering charges. The case was decided by the court in January. The session for Girls State delegates included an hour-long question and answer with the court’s three female justices. The discussion tackled many issues of the day, including how the courts operated during the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of judges in protecting voting rights and the concept of “rule of law.” The SCALES program is designed to help students understand the role of the courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today heard arguments in the fight over Gov. Bill Lee’s controversial school voucher program, the Tennessean reports. A Nashville judge ruled in 2020 that the program violated “home rule” provisions of the state's constitution because it only applied to Davidson and Shelby counties. The court deemed it unconstitutional and the Tennessee Court of Appeals later affirmed that decision. Arguing before the state’s high court today, Metro Director of Law Bob Cooper called the law an “unfunded mandate” from the state. Solicitor General Andrée Blumstein argued that limiting the program to two counties was the state’s attempt at creating a pilot program that, if successful, could expand to more counties. The legislation originally applied to five counties, but as lawmakers debated the program, that number was slowly “whittled down” to two. The measure passed by one vote from a Knoxville representative, who only agreed to switch his vote once Knox County was removed from the program. The FBI is reportedly investigating whether bribery was used to pass the measure. The justices did not indicate when they might rule on the matter.

The Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday determined that the statute that limits noneconomic damages in personal injury cases to $750,000 applies to all claims asserted in the action. Yesterday’s ruling stems from a case in which a trial court applied the statutory cap separately to two plaintiffs in the same healthcare liability action. That decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Justices Sharon G. Lee and Cornelia A. Clark dissented, stating that the cap on noneconomic damages, however it is applied, is unconstitutional. The Administrative Office of the Courts has more on the case.  

The Tennessee Supreme Court today overturned a decision that allowed for residential-use-only restrictions to be applied to subdivision lots that were sold before the restriction was created. The justices unanimously agreed that the individuals who recorded the restriction in the case lacked the authority to restrict the use of land they did not own. In this case, the original developers of the land did not execute and record the restrictive covenants until two years after they had already begun selling the lots. By that time, the property at the center of the case had already been sold and the high court ruled the restrictions did not apply to the property. The Administrative Office of the Courts has more on the decision and the opinion authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will livestream two cases on June 3. The first case will begin streaming at 9 a.m. CDT and will be followed by the second case at 10:30 a.m. The livestream can be found on the Administrative Office of the Court’s (AOC) YouTube page. Find details of both cases on the AOC’s website.  

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued two proposed amendments to Rule 13 and requested that comments be filed by Aug. 19. The first proposed change would amend Section 5(a)(1) and (d)(1). The second would amend Section 5(e)(4)-(5). Both amendments have been proposed by a coalition including the Choosing Justice Initiative, Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Tennessee Post-Conviction Defender Organization. Written comments may be submitted by email or by mail to Clerk James Hivner, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 Seventh Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219.

The General Assembly has ratified and approved proposed changes to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Appellate Procedure. The changes will go into effect on July 1. The state House approved the civil rules changes (Resolution 21) and the appellate rules changes (Resolution 22) on March 22. The Senate approved the civil rules changes (Resolution 19) and the appellate rules changes (Resolution 20) on April 5. Read the notice from the Tennessee Supreme Court clerk. The court adopted the changes in December 2020 pending approval by the legislature. View red-line versions of the revised rules.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued an order to further loosen COVID-19 restrictions on in-person proceedings. Masks are now optional for those coming in-person to court, the order to stay six feet apart has been reduced to three feet and courtroom capacity requirements have been lifted, effective immediately. Judicial districts and judges still have discretion to limit the number of people in a courtroom and compliance with current CDC guidelines is still encouraged. The order also states that courts not already doing so, should begin utilizing technology to avoid in-person proceedings. Read more from the Administrative Office of the Courts.