TBA Law Blog


769 Posts found
Previous • Page 69 of 77 • Next
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jul 19, 2018

In an appeal from Shelby County Criminal Court, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s request for a new trial more than 20 years after his original conviction for aggravated rape. In 2016, prisoner Tommy Nunley filed a coram nobis petition, claiming there was new information to prove he was not guilty of the rape he was convicted of in 1998. The Supreme Court held that trial courts may summarily dismiss coram nobis petitions that do not show sufficient facts on their face, without discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Justice Holly Kirby authored the unanimous opinion.

Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 29, 2018
The Tennessee Supreme Court has amended Rule 13, sections 2 and 3 of the rules, regarding the appointment, qualifications and compensation of counsel for indigent defendants. The change becomes effective July 1. The court had solicited comment on the proposal on May 25, and received numerous comments from individual members of the bar across the state, as well as the Tennessee Bar Association, the Knoxville Bar Association, the Marshall County Bar Association and the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 26, 2018
The Tennessee Supreme Court has overturned the decision of a chancery court, which held that an attorney’s license to practice law should be reinstated. Drayton Beecher Smith II agreed to disbarment in conjunction with his 2007 guilty plea to federal charges of receipt and possession of child pornography. In 2014, he sought reinstatement of his license to practice law in Tennessee before a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR), which ultimately denied the petition. He then appealed the denial of reinstatement to the chancery court. The chancery court reversed the decision and ordered that Smith be reinstated to the practice of law. The BPR filed an appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the court overturned the Chancery Court decision, concluding that the hearing panel was within its authority to deny reinstatement of Smith’s law license.
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 22, 2018
On June 13, 2017, the Tennessee Bar Association filed a petition seeking to amend the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court to add a new rule which would address the practice of "Collaborative Family Law." On August 27, 2017, the court solicited written public comments and it received written public comments from the Board of Professional Responsibility, the Nashville Bar Association, the Knoxville Bar Association, the Middle Tennessee Collaborative Alliance, individual attorneys, and individual non-attorneys. The TBA responded to those comments, and now the court directs the Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission to formally comment on this proposed new rule. The comments shall be submitted on or before Monday, August 6, and may be e-mailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to James M. Hivner, Clerk, Re: Collaborative Family Law Tennessee Appellate Courts 100 Supreme Court Building 401 7th Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219-1407.
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 22, 2018
The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded the state’s waiver of sovereign immunity for claims brought against it under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a federal law intended to provide job security for veterans, does not apply to cases that arose before July 1, 2014, when the waiver became effective. Read the unanimous opinion in David R. Smith v. The Tennessee National Guard, authored by Justice Cornelia A. Clark, at the TNCourts.gov website.
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 19, 2018
After review of public comments, the Tennessee Supreme Court has amended Revised Rule 46, which will be effective July 9. The rule refines certain aspects of the implementation of the e-filing system. Read the order as well as the changes to the rules here.
Posted by: Suzanne Craig Robertson on Jun 15, 2018

In a unanimous opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that when a party to a divorce case violates a statutory injunction and then dies while the case is pending, a trial court may, after considering the equities of the parties, remedy the violation of the injunction. Read Rose Coleman v. Bryan Olson.

Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 12, 2018
The court has adopted an amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 2, Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9, Comment 4, and it takes effect immediately. On April 30, the court entered an order soliciting public comments on a proposed amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 2, Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9, Comment 4. The court received written comments during the comment period from the Tennessee Bar Association, the Knoxville Bar Association and Harold W. Duke III. The TBA and the KBA supported the amendment. Read the order and the amendment here.
Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 8, 2018

In a case involving dissenting shareholders forced out of a closely held Nashville corporation, the Tennessee Supreme Court has overruled its prior case law and adopted a standard that allows trial courts to use modern methods to determine the “fair value” of the dissenting shareholders’ stock. The court overruled a 1983 case that required courts to only use the "Delaware Block" method of valuation and adopted a more open approach. However, in the case at hand, Athlon Sports Communications, Inc. v. Stephen C. Duggan et al., the Supreme Court remanded it back to the trial court, as the lower court and other parties may have been operating under the mistaken assumption that Delaware Block was the only valuation method that was available to them.

Posted by: Katharine Heriges on Jun 8, 2018
The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed the suspension of Knoxville attorney Charles Edward Daniel from the practice of law, but modified the probated three-year suspension to include one year of active suspension. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed and analyzed the decision to suspend, rather than disbar, Daniel from the practice of law and concluded that suspension was within the range of appropriate sanctions in this case. However, the court determined that the decision to probate the entirety of Daniel’s suspension was out of line with similar attorney disciplinary sanctions.

Previous • Page 69 of 77 • Next