Video recordings of oral arguments heard in Nashville before the Tennessee Supreme Court are available to view approximately 21 days after the oral argument. You may access the video by clicking on the case number listed below.
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Cases were live-streamed to the TN Courts YouTube page.
--------------------------------------
May 28, 2026
Mark T. Young, Individually and d/b/a Mark T. Young & Associates v. Bonnie Young Davidson
E2025-01385-SC-R3-CV
In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a contempt order against an attorney whose law practice had been placed in receivership. When attorney Mark Young allegedly became unable to make business and financial decisions, his daughter filed a petition to place Mr. Young’s law firm, in which he practiced with another attorney, in receivership. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 29 provides authority for the appointment of a receiver for an “affected attorney,” defined in part as an attorney without a partner, associate, or other successor or representative capable of continuing the law practice. The Hamilton County Chancery Court granted the petition, appointed a receiver, and enjoined Mr. Young from spending or transferring assets or borrowing funds. Mr. Young allegedly violated that injunction, for which he was held in contempt, sentenced to jail time, and fined. Mr. Young appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, Rule 9, section 29 specifies that an appeal from an order appointing a receiver lies directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider whether the trial court had authority under Rule 9, section 29 to place Mr. Young’s law firm in receivership and to issue the injunction Mr. Young allegedly violated.
May 28, 2026
Leslie K. Jones v. Tennessee State University
M2024-01008-SC-R11-CV
The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider the appeal of Tennessee State University (“TSU”) in a case arising from the termination of an employee. Leslie Jones served as a TSU police officer beginning in 2001. He received multiple warnings about unprofessional conduct over the years, and TSU ultimately terminated his employment in 2012. Although TSU indicated that Mr. Jones was terminated pursuant to at-will provisions in his employment contract, Mr. Jones filed a grievance questioning whether TSU had good cause to terminate him and received an administrative hearing. At the hearing, TSU maintained that Mr. Jones was properly terminated as an at-will employee, but TSU also introduced evidence intended to establish good cause for the termination. The administrative hearing officer determined that TSU properly terminated Mr. Jones based on at-will provisions in his employment contract and that TSU had good cause to terminate him. Upon judicial review of the administrative decision, the Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that a statutory change had altered the at-will relationship between TSU and certain staff, such that TSU was required to establish good cause to terminate Mr. Jones. The court concluded that TSU had relied solely on the at-will provisions, meaning that it had failed to establish good cause. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted TSU’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether TSU was required to establish good cause to terminate Mr. Jones and, if so, whether the record supports the finding of good cause below.
May 28, 2026
Jospheen Guirguis et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davison County
M2024-01310-COA-R3-CV
This case presents a question of whether Metro Nashville has governmental immunity from a lawsuit arising out of a police shooting. In 2017, Metro Nashville police officers responded to an emergency call related to a domestic dispute. At the scene, officers exchanged gunfire with Michel Guirguis. During the exchange, Jospheen Guirguis and her minor daughter were wounded by gunshots from an officer. In 2018, Ms. Guirguis filed a lawsuit alleging that the officers were negligent and that Metro Nashville was vicariously liable. The Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) generally removes governmental immunity for an injury caused by a negligent act. However, the Davidson County Circuit Court determined that the gravamen of the lawsuit was a civil rights violation. Because the GTLA contains a civil rights exception to its general removal of tort immunity, the trial court concluded that Metro Nashville was immune and dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Guirguis’ application for permission to appeal to consider whether an officer’s accidental shooting of a bystander constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation and, therefore, qualifies under the civil rights exception in the GTLA.
May 27, 2026
Shirley Buckley et al. v. Jackson Radiology Associates, P.A. et al.
W2023-01777-SC-R11-CV
The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider the appeal of medical providers seeking to reinstate the dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit against them. Shirley Buckley sued multiple medical providers after her sister passed away, alleging that the defendants had been negligent in their diagnosis and treatment of her sister. Ms. Buckley identified one expert to help her prove her claim. The Madison County Circuit Court established a deadline to complete expert depositions. The deadline passed without Ms. Buckley arranging for her expert to be deposed. Ms. Buckley sought to extend the deadline, but the defendants moved to exclude the expert from testifying. The trial court chose to exclude the expert as a discovery sanction. Because Ms. Buckley had no other experts, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. Upon Ms. Buckley’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that exclusion of Ms. Buckley’s expert was too harsh of a discovery sanction. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the medical providers’ application for permission to appeal to consider the standards for imposing a discovery sanction that results in dismissal of a lawsuit and whether the trial court made an acceptable choice to exclude Ms. Buckley’s expert.
May 27, 2026
State of Tennessee v. Brent Paul Moon
M2023-01192-SC-R11-CD
In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will determine whether a near-three-year delay between issuance of a probation violation warrant and service of the warrant violated the probationer’s constitutional rights. In 2018, Brent Paul Moon pleaded guilty to crimes in Coffee County. He received a three-year sentence, served ninety days in jail, and then was placed on probation. In 2020, a probation violation warrant was issued when authorities learned that Mr. Moon was being charged with crimes in Franklin County. Mr. Moon remained incarcerated in Franklin County until he pleaded guilty in 2023. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Moon was served with the probation violation warrant. Mr. Moon moved to dismiss based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Coffee County Circuit Court denied the motion, finding that Mr. Moon suffered no prejudice from the delay. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mr. Moon’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the right to a speedy trial is applicable in a probation revocation proceeding, when any such right would attach, and whether the delay offended due process rights regardless of the applicability of speedy trial rights.
May 6, 2026
Timothy Allen Curtis and Tammy Curtis Webb, as next of kin of Virginia Curtis ex rel. Bruce Allen Curtis v. Tiffany L. Sharp et al.
E2023-01583-SC-R11-CV
In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will determine whether a widow’s pre-suit notice to her late husband’s healthcare providers complied with state law. Bruce Allen Curtis passed away unexpectedly in 2019 during a medical procedure. In 2020, his surviving spouse, Virginia Curtis, filed a lawsuit against American Anesthesiology of Tennessee (“AAT”), its registered nurse anesthetist Tiffany Sharp, and another medical provider. Ms. Curtis filed her complaint outside the one-year statute of limitations for healthcare liability claims, but she had filed pre-suit notice to extend the limitations period under the Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”). AAT and Ms. Sharp filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Ms. Curtis’s pre-suit notice was defective and, therefore, the lawsuit was untimely. The Knox County Circuit Court granted the motion, finding that Ms. Curtis’s notice lacked an effective HIPAA-compliant authorization permitting the providers to obtain Mr. Curtis’s medical records. The trial court found the authorization provided by Ms. Curtis defective because it included language purporting to prohibit communication among the providers about Mr. Curtis’s protected health information without obtaining a qualified protective order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, concluding that the limiting language in Ms. Curtis’s notice frustrated the purpose of the pre-suit notice requirement. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Curtis’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether her notice complied with the Act’s requirement that pre-suit notice must include a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization permitting each provider to obtain complete medical records from all providers being sent notice.
May 6, 2026
James W. Grubb et al. v. Joe D. Grubb et al.
E2023-01358-SC-R11-CV
The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider the appeal of James (“Jim”) Grubb in a business dispute with his brother, Joe Grubb. The brothers owned and operated successful rent-to-own and cash-advance businesses beginning in East Tennessee in the early 1990s, but their relationship later deteriorated. In 2017, Jim filed a lawsuit against Joe, in which Jim alleged, among other claims, wrongful interference with business relationships and breach of fiduciary duty. After an eleven-day bench trial in 2022, the McMinn County Chancery Court ruled in Jim’s favor. The trial court awarded a monetary judgment, ordered an exchange of ownership interests in other businesses, and awarded attorney’s fees to Jim. Upon Joe’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Jim’s application for permission to appeal to consider the definition and interpretation of wrongful interference with business relationships, whether a member of a member-managed LLC owes a fiduciary duty to another member, whether the trial court had the authority to order an exchange of business ownership interests, and whether the trial court correctly awarded attorney’s fees.
May 6, 2026
Emily Elizabeth Buckner v. Complete Wellness Chiropractic Center et al.
E2024-00698-SC-R11-CV
In 2023, Emily Elizabeth Buckner filed a healthcare liability lawsuit against multiple medical providers, alleging that they failed to diagnose and treat an injury to her back properly. As required by the Health Care Liability Act (“the Act”), her complaint indicated that she sent pre-suit notice to the providers. Attached to the complaint were copies of HIPAA-compliant authorizations permitting the providers to obtain her medical records that allegedly had been sent with her pre-suit notice. These copies, however, were unsigned. The medical providers moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the unsigned authorizations failed to demonstrate compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement. At a hearing on the motion, the Bradley County Circuit Court asked counsel for one of the providers if the authorization his client received before suit was signed. Counsel responded that he believed it was, but the trial court did not make a similar inquiry of counsel for the other providers. After the hearing, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that the unsigned authorizations did not demonstrate compliance with the Act. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the providers’ application for permission to appeal to consider the appropriate procedure and standards for determining compliance with the pre-suit notice requirement.
May 6, 2026
In re Nathaniel D.
E2025-00081-SC-R11-PT
Nathaniel D. was born in 2019 to Haleigh D. (“Mother”), who at the time was married to Zachary D. (“Stepfather”). Shortly after the child’s birth, Richard L. (“Father”) sought to establish parentage of Nathaniel D. DNA testing established Father’s parentage, and an agreed order of paternity was entered in 2021. However, issues related to custody, visitation, and child support were reserved for later determination. In 2022, with those issues still unresolved, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition for stepparent adoption and termination of Father’s parental rights. In 2024, the Knox County Chancery Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support the child. The trial court resolved the failure-to-support issue through summary judgment and determined after a hearing that termination was in the best interests of the child. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Father had established that his failure to pay child support was not willful. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mother and Stepfather’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the question of Father’s failure to support the child and whether the trial court correctly determined that termination was in the child’s best interests.
April 8, 2026
Brenda Sands v. Robert Williard, et al.
W2024-00772-SC-R11-CV
In December 2019, Brenda Sands allegedly was injured when she tripped on a rise in the sidewalk in front of property owned by Robert and Theresa Williard in Germantown, Tennessee. Ms. Sands filed a negligence lawsuit against the Williards and the City of Germantown in November 2020. The City claimed that it was not served properly and later filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. In October 2022, while the City’s motion was pending, the Williards filed a motion to amend their answer to assert comparative fault against the City. Before either motion was decided, Ms. Sands moved to voluntarily dismiss the City from her lawsuit. In February 2023, the Shelby County Circuit Court granted both Ms. Sands’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the City and the Williards’ motion to amend their answer. Almost immediately thereafter, Ms. Sands filed an amended complaint that once again named the City as a defendant in the lawsuit. Ms. Sands relied on a statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, that generally allows a plaintiff a certain period of time within which to add a defendant to an existing lawsuit after a defendant to that lawsuit asserts the comparative fault of that non-party. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that section 20-1-119 did not permit Ms. Sands to bring the City back into the lawsuit. The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals agreed that section 20-1-119 allowed Ms. Sands to add the City to her lawsuit under the circumstances of this case. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the City’s application for permission to appeal to determine the correct interpretation of section 20-1-119.
April 8, 2026
April Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan Nashville, PLLC, et al.
W2023-01186-SC-R11-CV
The law firm of Morgan & Morgan led a large class action lawsuit against a group of funeral homes that were alleged to have wrongfully abandoned human remains at the Galilee Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Bartlett, Tennessee between 2011 and 2014. The majority of funeral homes settled before trial. At trial, Morgan & Morgan obtained a favorable jury verdict as to the remaining funeral homes. However, the amount awarded by the jury led the plaintiffs to appeal. The parties ultimately reached a settlement. Thereafter, one of the class members, April Hawthorne, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Morgan & Morgan alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Ms. Hawthorne asserted that Morgan & Morgan failed to adequately negotiate with and accept reasonable settlement offers from the funeral homes involved in the trial, resulting in a smaller recovery for the class. The Shelby County Chancery Court found that the class proposed by Ms. Hawthorne satisfied the requirements for class certification detailed in Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. That decision was subject to an immediate appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to consider the appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision to certify a class, the various requirements for class certification, and whether Ms. Hawthorne has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the proposed class.
April 8, 2026
City of Milan, Tennessee, et al. v. Frederick H. Agee
W2024-00200-SC-R11-CV
In 2021, District Attorney General Frederick Agee requested that the cities of Milan and Trenton, Tennessee provide prosecuting personnel or equivalent funding to support his office’s handling of state criminal cases in their municipal courts. When the cities refused, General Agee indicated that his office would no longer prosecute state criminal cases in their municipal courts. The cities brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to require General Agee’s office to prosecute the offenses. Relying principally on Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-7-103, General Agee argued that a local district attorney general is required to prosecute cases in municipal court only when “the municipality provides sufficient personnel to the district attorney general for that purpose.” The Gibson County Chancery Court, however, found that the cities are not required to provide prosecuting personnel or equivalent funds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to consider whether section 8-7-103 or any other provision of Tennessee law requires a local district attorney general to prosecute state criminal cases in municipal court.
February 12, 2026
The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System v. UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Inc. d/b/a AmeriChoice
M2022-01543-SC-R11-CV
AmeriChoice is a managed care organization under TennCare, Tennessee’s Medicaid program. As such, AmeriChoice serves as insurer for numerous Tennesseans. Erlanger is a hospital system, but it was not a provider in AmeriChoice’s network. Nevertheless, Erlanger was required by federal law to provide emergency services to patients covered by AmeriChoice up to the point the patient was stabilized, for which Erlanger would be paid. After stabilization, however, AmeriChoice was responsible for payment only if the medical services were pre-approved. In 2009, Erlanger sought payment for post-stabilization services under a theory of unjust enrichment. The trial court granted AmeriChoice summary judgment, finding that Erlanger could not show that AmeriChoice had a legal obligation to pay for the medical services at issue. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the lack of a legal obligation to pay did not bar the claim for unjust enrichment. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted AmeriChoice’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether AmeriChoice met its burden under the summary judgment standard with respect to the elements of an unjust enrichment claim.
February 12, 2026
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Bill Lee et al.
M2023-01678-SC-R11-CV
Tennessee law provides for the creation of airport authorities by certain populous cities or counties, including the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”). In 2023, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a law that changed the makeup and terms of the governing body of any airport authority for a county having a metropolitan form of government and a population of more than 500,000. The Metro Nashville Airport Authority was the only one that met the qualifications. Metro filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. The trial court determined that the law violated multiple provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. In particular, the trial court found that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause. The trial court also found that the law violated what is known as the Anti-Ripper Clause, which generally prohibits shortening the term of certain government officials. Lastly, the trial court found that certain provisions of the law violated equal protection guarantees. The Court of Appeals concluded that the law comported with equal protection guarantees, but the court agreed that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the law comports with the requirements of the Local Legislation Clause and the Anti-Ripper Clause.
February 12, 2026
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al. v. Bill Lee et al.
M2024-01182-SC-R11-CV
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) has a governing council comprised of forty members. In 2023, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a law that, among other requirements, imposed a twenty-person limit on the size of legislative bodies for counties with metropolitan governments. The constitutionality of the law was immediately challenged and the trial court determined that although certain aspects of the law were moot, other aspects violated two provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. First, the trial court found that the law violated what is known as the Local Legislation Clause, which generally prohibits legislation that affects a local entity without that entity’s approval. Second, the trial court found that the law violated what is known as the Exemption Clause, which places a twenty-five-member cap on the size of county legislative bodies but exempts metropolitan governments from that cap. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, concluding that the law was constitutional. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Metro’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the lawsuit is entirely moot and, if not, whether the legislation comports with the requirements of the Local Legislation Clause and the Exemption Clause.
January 8th, 2026
Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota a/s/o Campus Chalet, Inc. v. East Tennessee Sprinkler Company, Inc.
E2024-00599-SC-R11-CV
East Tennessee Sprinkler Company (“ETS”) installed a sprinkler system at the Campus Chalet in Johnson City in 1992. ETS also agreed to inspect, maintain, and repair the sprinkler system after installation. In 2020, nearly 30 years after installation, one of the water lines in the system burst, causing damage to Campus Chalet’s property. In 2023, Campus Chalet’s insurance carrier, Tri-State Insurance Company (“Tri-State”), filed a subrogation action—stepping into the shoes of Campus Chalet—against ETS, asserting tort and contract claims. ETS moved to dismiss the action. ETS relied on what is known as a statute of repose, a law that imposes a four-year time limit on claims that seek compensation for property damage arising out of a deficiency in the construction of an improvement to real property. The Washington County Circuit Court granted the motion, finding Tri-State’s lawsuit untimely. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the allegations in the lawsuit challenged ETS’s inspection and maintenance of the sprinkler system rather than its installation. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted ETS’s application for permission to appeal to consider the pleading requirements for allegations like those in Tri-State’s lawsuit and the proper interpretation of the law imposing a four-year time limit for filing suit.
January 8th, 2026
Preston Garner et al. v. Southern Baptist Convention et al.
E2024-00100-SC-R11-CV
Preston Garner is an ordained minister who was working at a Baptist church and a Baptist-affiliated school. The Southern Baptist Convention (“SBC”)—a network of independent churches—determines whether local churches are in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. The SBC had established a reporting mechanism for allegations of sexual abuse against individuals involved in Baptist ministry. The SBC inquired of Mr. Garner’s church whether it was aware of an allegation of sexual misconduct that allegedly had occurred years earlier at a different church in another state. After the inquiry, Mr. Garner lost his church and school employment. Mr. Garner subsequently filed what is primarily a defamation action against the SBC. The SBC moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that it could proceed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the SBC’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the “ecclesiastical abstention” or “church autonomy” doctrine, which generally limits courts from adjudicating questions of internal church governance, precludes the lawsuit. Also before the Court is a question of whether the Tennessee Public Participation Act, a law that is designed to protect the exercise of free speech rights, precludes the lawsuit.