The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases on May 28 before a group of rising high school seniors at the Tennessee American Legion Boys State in Cookeville. The event is part of the Court’s SCALES program, which educates students about the Tennessee legal system and the functions of the judicial branch. The court will hear arguments in State v. Ginny Parker and State v. Antonio Demetrius Adkisson. Then on May 29, beginning at 9 a.m. CDT, the court will hear three cases at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville. Those cases include Tinsley Properties LLC et al. v. Grundy County, Jo Carol Edwards v. Peoplease LLC et al., and Berkeley Research Group LLC v. Southern Advanced Materials LLC. A fourth case, Connie Reguli v. Board of Professional Responsibility, will be submitted to the court on the briefs. All oral arguments will be livestreamed to the court’s YouTube page.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) privilege under state law is waivable. The decision came in a negligence lawsuit brought by Payton Castillo against CHI Memorial Hospital and other health care providers following the death of her husband. After his death, the hospital formed a QIC to evaluate the care he received and later disclosed QIC-protected information to Castillo during a meeting. When she sought to obtain those statements in discovery, the hospital argued they were privileged under the QIC statute, which shields records and statements related to QIC activities from disclosure. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the information was discoverable, and the hospital appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that while the disclosed information fell within the protections of the statute, the hospital waived its privilege by voluntarily sharing the information with Castillo.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has issued a request for comments on three rules change proposals. The first, proposed by the CLE Commission, makes a number of changes to the commission’s regulations. The changes are detailed in a red line document attached to the order. The second proposes changes to Rule 21 Section 4.05 to reflect the fact that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners no longer prepares bar examination questions and replace “Tennessee or any of the sister states” with “any state” in a section dealing with earning CLE credit through service as a bar examiner. The third proposes changes to Rule 21, section 5.01(g)(10) to align it with the current version of section 4.08(a). The deadline for submitting comments for any of these proposals is June 27. Written comments should reference docket No. ADM2025-00453 and be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to James Hivner, Clerk, Re: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 21, 401 Seventh Ave. N., Ste. 321, Nashville, TN 37219-1407.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has adopted amendments to Rule 9, Section 10.6; Rule 21, Section 7.07; and Rule 43, Section 15. The court said it was making the changes to “clarify and bring consistency” to rules dealing with the effective date of suspensions for non-payment of annual registration fees, non-compliance with requirements for Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA), and non-compliance with continuing legal education requirements. The amendments took effect immediately.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has found that a trial court could order a man who voluntarily dismissed his own lawsuit to pay his ex-wife’s attorney fees associated with that suit. The court said that under Tennessee law, “the challenger who forfeits, loses, and his opponent wins.” Even if the dismissal was voluntary, it held, the wife successfully kept her alimony and prevailed over efforts to end it. Justice Sarah K. Campbell wrote a separate opinion that concurred in the judgment and cautioned that the majority’s reasoning in the case should be limited to the family law context. She was joined in the concurring opinion by Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins. Read more about the case in a news release from the Administrative Office of the Courts or read the opinions.

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued two rulings today. In the first case, the court ruled that a lawsuit against Life Care Center in Tullahoma may proceed, despite the plaintiff's death. The case involves an elderly woman, Annie Jones, who was on camera while being bathed by a nursing home employee who also was conversing on a personal video call. Jones’s daughter filed a lawsuit alleging the nursing home committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a privacy violation. Life Care argued that the suit should end due to Jones’s death. The court disagreed, stating that most tort lawsuits, including privacy claims, can continue even after the plaintiff's death. In the second ruling, the court held that the state’s collateral estoppel doctrine prevents a plaintiff from relitigating the issue of class certification in a refiled case. In this case, plaintiffs sought to certify a class action over TennCare’s $50 cap on non-emergency services. The court ruled that because the issue of class certification had already been denied in an earlier case, it could not be revisited.

On April 9, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected a motion from Davidson County lawyer Michael Lloyd Freeman to appeal a Board of Professional Responsibility decision to revoke his probation. On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court suspended Freeman for three years, with 90 days to be served on active suspension and the remainder on probation. During the active suspension, complaints were lodged again him. After a hearing, the Board of Professional Responsibility determined that probation should be revoked, and Freeman be required to serve the remainder of the time on active suspension. It informed Freeman that he had 60 days to appeal the decision to the circuit or chancery court. The Supreme Court found that information to be incorrect. Under the rules, a hearing panel’s order on a petition to revoke probation is to be treated as a decree of the trial court. Thus, any appeal is to be made to the Supreme Court within 30 days. Freeman appealed 37 days after the hearing panel’s decision. The trial court, recognizing that it lacked jurisdiction, transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for timeliness but noted that Freeman could file a motion requesting entry of a corrected judgment, which, if granted, would begin a new 30-day time frame for appealing.

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear two cases — Alan C. Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix PC, et al. and Alice Cartwright Garner et al. v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell PLLC, et al. — during its April 9 docket in Jackson. The two cases are related actions involving similar legal issues. The cases will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court, 6 US-45 Bypass, Jackson 38301, beginning at 9 a.m. CDT and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page. Read more about the cases in a press release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that Tennessee law does not prohibit a private employer from firing an employee for exercising the right to petition the government. In 2021, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee directed all employees to receive the COVID vaccine. One employee, Heather Smith, chose not to receive the vaccine. When Smith wrote to members of the state legislature to express her concern with the mandate, the company warned that the communication violated policy. When she sent a second email, the company terminated her. Smith then filed suit alleging that the company violated her right to petition the government under the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that the state constitution’s protection of the right is enforceable only against the government, not private actors. Justice Sarah Campbell concurred but wrote a separate opinion. Read more in a press release or read the opinions.

Following the Lee administration's release of its amended budget, which includes funding for the new plan for indigent representation in Tennessee, the General Assembly now will move forward with House and Senate consideration. The amended budget, introduced as HB1409/SB1431, has been referred to the House Finance, Ways and Means Subcommittee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee. In the House, the subcommittee must first consider the bill before sending it to the full Finance, Ways and Means Committee and then on to the floor. In the Senate, the committee must consider the bill before forwarding it the floor. Amendments at each step of the process may be introduced. The legislature’s one constitutionally required charge is to pass a balanced budget, which is one of the last things it will do before adjourning for the year. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee.