William M. Barker

The case involved Michael Dwayne Edwards' 2006 petition for habeas corpus relief challenging his 1998 burglary conviction sentence, in which the trial court classified him as a persistent offender based on five prior felony convictions and imposed a nine-year Range III sentence. Edwards argued that one conviction for felony evading arrest occurred after the burglary offense and thus did not qualify as a prior conviction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-107, rendering his sentence illegal and the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that even assuming an error in the persistent offender classification, the mistake was non-jurisdictional and at most rendered the judgment voidable rather than void, which does not entitle a petitioner to habeas corpus relief. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' remand for a hearing and reinstated the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This wrongful death case arose after eighteen-year-old Ryan Cody Downs, who had been drinking with several friends including the defendants, became ill during a ride in a pickup truck, exited the vehicle on an interstate highway for unknown reasons, and was struck and killed by other cars. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendants placed the decedent in the truck bed, whether he was helpless, and whether the defendants took charge of him, which could give rise to a duty of care. The court further held that none of the defendants stood in a special relationship with the decedent that would create an affirmative duty to aid or protect him. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining negligence elements and defenses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of second-degree murder who challenged the admissibility of his videotaped confession, which followed an initial incriminating admission made during an unwarned custodial interrogation by police. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to determine whether Missouri v. Seibert or the state precedent in State v. Smith barred use of the later Mirandized statement. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that Seibert does not prohibit admission of the confession because the defendant received proper warnings and voluntarily waived his rights before the videotaped interview. It further held that the state constitutional right against self-incrimination under article I, section 9 was not violated, as the overall circumstances supported a free and informed choice to confess. The conviction was upheld, though the case was remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this criminal case, the defendants were charged with drug offenses after a traffic stop of their slow-moving vehicle (around 20 mph in a 35 mph zone), which led to the discovery of evidence; they moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the stop was unlawful under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-154(a), the impeding traffic statute. The trial court granted the motions, interpreting the statute to require that other vehicles come to a complete stop before a slow driver could be found to impede traffic, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the statute does not require vehicles to stop for traffic to be impeded and that the trial court had applied an erroneous legal standard. The court remanded for a new suppression hearing to address the facts and the state's alternative arguments, such as whether the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a medical emergency.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to theft after embezzling over $630,000 from her employer and was sentenced to confinement followed by probation with a condition requiring monthly restitution payments of about $1,545. After release, she moved to reduce the payments to $500 per month, but the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the denial via a common-law writ of certiorari and found a plain and palpable abuse of discretion. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant had no appeal as of right under the rules of appellate procedure from the denial of a motion to modify probation conditions and that certiorari was unavailable because the trial court had not acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily. The Court reinstated the trial court's order denying the modification.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Amanda Dewald and her husband against StoneCrest Medical Center and an independent contractor radiologist, alleging negligence in misreading ultrasound results and issuing an erroneous cancer diagnosis. The trial court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment due to factual disputes over whether the hospital could be held vicariously liable under an apparent agency theory. The Court of Appeals reversed and granted summary judgment to the hospital, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case. The court applied the standard from its companion decision in Boren v. Weeks, derived from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 429, which requires plaintiffs to show that the hospital held itself out as providing the services, the patient looked to the hospital rather than the individual physician, and the patient reasonably believed the services were provided by the hospital or its employees; meaningful written notice at admission can generally defeat liability, but factual disputes precluded summary judgment here.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved the conviction of defendant Kacy Dewayne Cannon for aggravated rape of an elderly victim in her home. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed multiple issues, including the chain of custody for pantyhose evidence containing DNA, the admissibility of the victim's out-of-court statements to police and a nurse examiner, suppression of DNA database evidence, potential judicial bias, and sentencing. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the pantyhose and that admission of the victim's testimonial statements violated the defendant's confrontation rights, as these errors were not harmless. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and motion for recusal, finding no constitutional violations there.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Bill Walker sued Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. on behalf of himself and a proposed class of other car buyers, alleging that the dealership improperly charged "dealer incurred costs" as part of vehicle prices and misrepresented their nature, in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and under common law theories of misrepresentation and fraud. The trial court allowed class certification to proceed on these claims, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to address whether such certification was proper. The court held that class actions are unavailable under the TCPA and that the fraud and misrepresentation claims could not proceed as a class action because each transaction involved unique oral representations, reliance, and damages that varied by individual buyer and salesperson. The decision rested on the statute's text precluding class proceedings and the predominance of individual issues over common ones under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a juvenile student, R.D.S., who was charged with delinquency for simple possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia after a school resource officer searched his truck at Page High School and found incriminating items and obtained statements from him. The trial court denied a motion to suppress the statements and evidence, finding the student was not in custody so Miranda warnings were not required and that the search was supported by probable cause; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the ruling on the statements, holding they were admissible because the student was not in custody during the questioning in the school setting. However, it reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on the search issue, reasoning that the record lacked sufficient evidence about the deputy’s specific duties as a school resource officer to determine whether she was required to meet the reasonable suspicion or probable cause standard.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a newspaper's requests under the Tennessee Public Records Act for access to police field interview cards containing photos and notes from stops based on reasonable suspicion, as well as certain financial records related to a minor league baseball team operating in a city-owned stadium. The City of Jackson denied the requests, and lower courts addressed whether a common law law enforcement investigative privilege could exempt the records from disclosure. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that no such privilege exists in Tennessee common law and therefore does not qualify as an exception under the Public Records Act, though it remanded for a determination of whether any records pertained to pending or ongoing criminal investigations. The court also reinstated the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to the petitioners and a permanent injunction requiring the city to provide written responses to future records requests explaining any denial.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a father initially obtained custody of his minor child after a juvenile court found the child dependent and neglected due to alleged abuse by the mother. Three years later, the mother petitioned the juvenile court for a change of custody, which was denied on grounds of no significant change in circumstances; she then appealed to circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the custody petition was unrelated to the original dependency and neglect proceeding, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that subsequent custody modification decisions remain part of the dependency and neglect proceeding under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(a), making them appealable to circuit court for a de novo hearing even years later. The core reasoning focused on the statute's distinction between appeals from dependency and neglect matters (to circuit court) versus other juvenile civil matters (to the Court of Appeals), along with the ongoing nature of juvenile court jurisdiction once invoked in such cases.

family lawprocedure

The case involved James Riels, who pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and related charges for killing two women during a robbery and was sentenced to death by a jury after a capital sentencing hearing. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal and focused on whether the trial court improperly allowed the State to cross-examine Riels about the details of the offenses during the sentencing phase. The court held that this cross-examination was erroneous and that the error was reversible, requiring reversal of the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance. It remanded the case for a new capital sentencing hearing while adopting the lower court's rulings on other issues like the motion to suppress.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from the process of filling a vacancy on the Tennessee Supreme Court under the Tennessee Plan (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 17-4-101 to 17-4-118), after one of three nominees withdrew and the Governor rejected the initial panel and requested a new one that included minority candidates. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the original certified list of nominees remained valid despite the withdrawal; that previously rejected nominees could not appear on a subsequent panel; that judicial nominees are not "employees" under the Tennessee Human Rights Act; that the equal-protection challenge presented a non-justiciable political question and was otherwise meritless; and that the Governor’s rejection letter did not encroach on the Commission’s statutory role. The court modified the trial court’s remedy, requiring the Commission to select and certify an entirely new second panel of three nominees while clarifying that the Commission could consider prior applications or accept new ones at its discretion. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Tennessee Plan and established limits on judicial review of discretionary appointment matters.

civil rightsprocedure

This workers' compensation case involved Frances Barnett, who had previously settled claims against Milan Seating Systems for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and later sought additional benefits after developing further symptoms, including cubital tunnel syndrome on the right side, requiring new surgery. The trial court found the new carpal tunnel claim barred by res judicata because it was not a distinct injury with anatomical change and applied a 1.5-times impairment rating cap to the cubital tunnel award under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(d)(1)(A) based on Barnett's continued employment after Milan Seating was sold. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the res judicata ruling, holding that the evidence supported no new compensable carpal tunnel injury, but reversed on the cap, concluding that the post-sale employer was not the pre-injury employer even though Barnett's job duties, location, and pay remained unchanged. The case was remanded for recalculation of vocational disability benefits for the cubital tunnel injury without the statutory multiplier limit.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the termination of parental rights of two Chinese citizens living in the United States to their daughter A.M.H., whom they had placed with prospective adoptive parents through a private agency shortly after her birth. The trial court terminated the parents' rights on the ground of willful failure to visit the child during a four-month period, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parents' legal efforts to regain custody during that period negated any finding of willful abandonment and that their initial consent to transfer custody had not been fully informed. The court further held that the parents' constitutional superior rights to custody could not be overridden absent a showing of substantial harm to the child from reunification, which the evidence did not establish, and remanded the case for a plan to return the child to her parents.

family law

The case involved Shaun Hoover's habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of a 35-year sentence for second degree murder imposed under a 1999 plea agreement, where he had pleaded guilty to lesser offenses in exchange for that term as a Range I offender, despite it exceeding the statutory maximum for that offender range. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' dismissal of the petition, holding that the sentence was legal. The core reasoning was that a plea-bargained sentence is valid so long as it does not exceed the maximum punishment authorized for the offense itself (here, the 60-year maximum for a Class A felony), even if it surpasses the range-specific limit; offender classification and release eligibility are non-jurisdictional and subject to negotiation in plea deals, and the court clarified that its prior decision in McConnell did not require otherwise.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an employee who suffered a work-related shoulder injury in 1997 and settled his workers' compensation claim with the employer, leaving future medical benefits open. The employer refused to cover recommended shoulder joint replacement surgery, contending it was not causally related to the original injury. The trial court granted the employee's motion to compel treatment, finding the need for surgery was related to the 1997 injury. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed, holding that the trial court did not improperly shift the burden of proof and that the evidence, including medical testimony and the employee's account of no new injuries and limited post-employment activities, preponderated in favor of causation.

labor & employment

In this consolidated post-conviction case, two petitioners convicted of first-degree murder argued that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to an erroneous jury instruction on release eligibility following a change in the law. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting reversal of the murder convictions and remand for new trials on those charges alone. The court affirmed the convictions on all other counts, finding no other instances of ineffective assistance by counsel. The decision reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals in part on the ineffective assistance claim related to the jury instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a marital dissolution agreement signed by divorcing spouses remained enforceable as a contract after one spouse repudiated it before court approval. The parties executed the agreement, which addressed child support, alimony, and property division, but the husband filed for divorce and sought to disavow it; the wife moved to enforce it. The trial court granted the divorce and upheld the agreement as a valid contract, while the Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that a consent judgment requires ongoing mutual consent. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and reinstated the trial court's ruling, holding that the agreement was a binding contract subject to ordinary contract rules, that repudiation alone did not invalidate it, and that the husband raised no valid defenses.

family law

This case involved a workers’ compensation claim by Sherry Hubble against Dyer Nursing Home after she was injured in a car accident while traveling to a required orientation session at another facility. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings that Hubble was an employee at the time of the accident, that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the special errand exception, and that she suffered 95% permanent partial disability. The court also upheld the order requiring the employer to reimburse State Farm for medical payments made under the driver's policy but not for liability payments, and denied the employer a credit for amounts paid by State Farm, based on the applicable subrogation provisions in Tennessee's workers' compensation law.

labor & employmenttorts & liability