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.
2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
Cases were live-streamed to the TN Courts YouTube page.
April 9th, 2025
Alan C. Cartwright v. Thomason Hendrix, P.C., et al. - W2022-01627-SC-R11-CV
This case arises from a legal malpractice lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Alan Cartwright against his former attorneys, Jerry Mitchell and Justin Mitchell, along with their law firms. The Defendants had represented Mr. Cartwright in a series of unsuccessful lawsuits involving the administration of Mr. Cartwright’s trust. Mr. Cartwright alleged that the Defendants needlessly prolonged the trust litigation by filing meritless claims in order to increase their legal fees. In response to the complaint, the Defendants filed a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), asserting that Mr. Cartwright’s claims involved the right to petition as protected by the TPPA. Mr. Cartwright opposed the petition, arguing that the TPPA does not apply to the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of a client. The trial court agreed with Mr. Cartwright and denied the Defendants’ TPPA petition to dismiss on the grounds that the TPPA does not cover legal malpractice claims. The Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals determined that legal malpractice claims are not categorically excluded from the TPPA and that the Defendants had met their burden to establish that the complaint related to the attorneys’ protected petitioning activity. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mr. Cartwright’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the TPPA applies to legal malpractice actions that are based upon the filing of a lawsuit.
April 9th, 2025
Alice Cartwright Garner et al. v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, PLLC, et al. - W2022-01636-SC-R11-CV
This case arises from a series of lawsuits involving Plaintiff Alice Cartwright Garner’s administration of a trust created for the benefit of her brother, Alan Cartwright. After the trust litigation concluded in Ms. Garner’s favor, Ms. Garner filed a complaint against Mr. Cartwright’s former attorneys and their law firms, alleging that the Defendants had depleted the trust assets by needlessly prolonging the litigation with meritless lawsuits. In response to the complaint, the Defendants filed a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), asserting that Ms. Garner’s tort claims involved the right to petition as protected by the TPPA. Ms. Garner opposed the petition, arguing that the TPPA does not apply to the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of a client. The trial court agreed with Ms. Garner and denied the Defendants’ TPPA petition to dismiss on the grounds that the TPPA does not cover claims that are based upon an attorney acting contrary to his client’s interests. The Defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals determined that the claims at issue are not categorically excluded from the TPPA and that the Defendants had met their burden to establish that the complaint related to the attorneys’ protected petitioning activity. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Garner’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the TPPA applies to tort actions that are based upon the filing of a lawsuit.
February 12th, 2025
Brian Coblentz et al. v. Tractor Supply Company - M2023-00249-SC-R11-CV
Plaintiff Brian Coblentz was a sales representative for Stanley National Hardware. As part of his responsibilities, Mr. Coblentz visited Defendant Tractor Supply’s stores to take inventory of Stanley National merchandise, write orders for needed products, and arrange merchandise displays. Mr. Coblentz suffered a head injury during a visit to the Tractor Supply store in Fayetteville, Tennessee, when a piece of steel hardware from the Stanley National merchandise display struck him in the head. Mr. Coblentz obtained workers’ compensation benefits from Stanley National and filed a premises-liability lawsuit against Tractor Supply. After discovery, Tractor Supply moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act barred Mr. Coblentz from bringing tort claims against it for his injuries because Mr. Coblentz was Tractor Supply’s subcontractor. The trial court granted Tractor Supply’s motion and dismissed the case. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Mr. Coblentz’s application for permission to appeal to address whether, and under what circumstances, a retailer assumes workers’ compensation liability and tort immunity for a vendor employee’s injuries occurring at the retailer’s store.
February 12th, 2025
State of Tennessee v. Shenessa Sokolosky - M2022-00873-Sc-R11-CD
In August 2019, Defendant Shenessa Sokolosky pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. She received two consecutive eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentences to be served on probation. Six months later, her probation officer obtained a warrant which alleged that Ms. Sokolosky had violated the conditions of her probation. Ms. Sokolosky was arrested on the warrant in April 2022 and was held in jail without bond. Prior to a probation revocation hearing, Ms. Sokolosky moved to dismiss the warrant on the grounds that the practices of the probation company violated her right to due process. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing, the court found that Ms. Sokolosky had violated the conditions of her probation by failing to pay $2,277 in fines, costs, and court fees. The court returned Ms. Sokolosky to probation, extended her probation period by eleven months and twenty-nine days, and established a payment plan for the outstanding balance of costs and fines. Ms. Sokolosky appealed. After oral arguments, the Court of Appeals requested that the parties brief whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because Ms. Sokolosky completed the extended term of her probation while the appeal was pending. Upon consideration of the briefs, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Sokolosky’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether a probation revocation appeal becomes moot by the expiration of the defendant’s sentence.
February 12th, 2025
Ashley Denson Ex Rel. Bobbie J. Denson v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak Ridge et al. - E2023-00027-SC-R11-CV
The decedent, Ashley Denson, died shortly after being released from Defendant Methodist Medical Center. The decedent was survived by two minor children who were placed into the custody of her mother, Bobbie Jo Denson. Before filing a healthcare liability action, Ms. Denson sent the Defendant health care providers pre-suit notice of her intent to sue, as is required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-16-121(a). The pre-suit notice identified Ms. Denson as the party authorizing the notice. It did not mention or reference the decedent’s surviving minor children. Ms. Denson subsequently filed a complaint as the personal representative of Ashley Denson, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of the surviving children. The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Ms. Denson lacked standing and failed to comply with the statutory pre-suit notice requirements. The trial court denied the motion but certified the case for interlocutory review. The Court of Appeals accepted review and unanimously affirmed as to Ms. Denson’s standing. A majority determined Ms. Denson failed to substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirements and reversed the trial court’s decision denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Denson’s application for permission to appeal to address two questions certified for review: (1) Did Plaintiff Bobbie Joe Denson substantially comply with the pre-suit notice requirement regarding identification of the “claimant” pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(B) when she did not indicate in the pre-suit notice that she was acting on behalf of the decedent’s surviving minor children? and (2) Did Bobbie Jo Denson, as mother of the decedent and grandmother and temporary legal custodian of the surviving minor children pursuant to a Juvenile Court order, have standing to give the pre-suit notice and file the complaint in this case?
January 8th, 2025
Matthew Long v. Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Fund.- E2022-01151-SC-R11-CV
Petitioner Matthew Long worked as a firefighter with the Chattanooga Fire Department for fifteen years. In 2019, Mr. Long was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his work as a first responder to emergencies involving severe injuries and death. Mr. Long applied to the Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Fund seeking disability benefits under the Fund’s disability policy. After a transcribed administrative hearing, the Board of Trustees for the Fund denied Mr. Long’s application on the basis that Mr. Long failed to show that the events causing his PTSD were “unexpected,” as is required by the Fund’s disability policy. Mr. Long filed a petition in Hamilton County Chancery Court challenging the Fund’s decision as arbitrary and capricious. After a hearing, the Chancery Court found that the term “unexpected” was ambiguous and that the disability policy should be construed in favor of Mr. Long. The Chancery Court vacated the Fund’s decision and awarded Mr. Long disability benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the Board’s interpretation was entitled to deference under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, but the ambiguity in the policy must be construed in favor of Mr. Long. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Fund’s application for permission to appeal to determine the proper standard for courts to review claims involving the administrative denial of disability benefits.
January 8th, 2025
Brett W. Houghton Et Al. v. Malibu Boats, LLC- E2023-00324-SC-Rll-CV
Plaintiffs Brett and Ceree Houghton are the sole shareholders of a boat dealership called Great Wakes Boating, Inc. Great Wakes operated as a dealership for Defendant Malibu Boats, LLC. After the Defendant terminated its dealership agreement with Great Wakes, the Plaintiffs brought this civil action alleging that Malibu Boats fraudulently misled them into believing that their business relationship would continue. The Plaintiffs asserted only individual tort claims against Malibu Boats and brought no claims on behalf of Great Wakes itself. After a five-day trial, a jury found Malibu Boats liable for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud, and awarded Plaintiffs $900,000 in damages for loss of equity in Great Wakes’ dealership buildings. After the judgment was entered, Malibu Boats argued for the first time that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims because the claimed lost equity was suffered by their company, Great Wakes, rather than the Plaintiffs individually. The Circuit Court agreed and vacated the judgment, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs, as individual shareholders, did not have standing to bring their claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs’ lack of standing was not a jurisdictional issue, and that Malibu waived its objection to the Plaintiffs’ standing by not raising it sooner. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to determine the proper application of principles involving third-party or shareholder standing.