APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Before his election to the bench, the probate judge in this interpleader action served as an
expert witness in a 2017 case involving one of the defendants, Watson Burns, PLLC. In
the current case, Watson Burns, PLLC and another law firm defendant moved for the
probate judge’s recusal based on the expert opinions the judge expressed in the 2017 case.
The probate judge denied the motion, and the law firms filed an accelerated interlocutory
appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.
The Court of Appeals reversed, ordered the probate judge’s recusal, and remanded for
assignment of another judge. Two other parties to the interpleader action then filed an
accelerated application for permission to appeal in this Court pursuant to Rule 10B, section
2.07. We ordered the parties prevailing in the Court of Appeals to file a response to the
application. Having thoroughly reviewed the Rule 10B application for permission to
appeal, the response, all appendices, and the applicable law, we grant the Rule 10B
application, dispense with additional briefing and oral argument, and hold that the probate
judge’s denial of the recusal motion was appropriate in this case. Therefore, we reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
decision

Before his election to the bench, the probate judge in this interpleader action served as an
expert witness in a 2017 case involving one of the defendants, Watson Burns, PLLC. In
the current case, Watson Burns, PLLC and another law firm defendant moved for the
probate judge’s recusal based on the expert opinions the judge expressed in the 2017 case.
The probate judge denied the motion, and the law firms filed an accelerated interlocutory
appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B.
The Court of Appeals reversed, ordered the probate judge’s recusal, and remanded for
assignment of another judge. Two other parties to the interpleader action then filed an
accelerated application for permission to appeal in this Court pursuant to Rule 10B, section
2.07. We ordered the parties prevailing in the Court of Appeals to file a response to the
application. Having thoroughly reviewed the Rule 10B application for permission to
appeal, the response, all appendices, and the applicable law, we grant the Rule 10B
application, dispense with additional briefing and oral argument, and hold that the probate
judge’s denial of the recusal motion was appropriate in this case. Therefore, we reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.

A juvenile appeals the decision to re-commit him to DCS custody for treatment and
services. We conclude that this appeal is moot in light of post-judgment facts.

“When there is a conflict between the common law and a statute, the provision of the statute must prevail.” Graves v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 148 S.W. 239, 242 (Tenn. 1912). That longstanding rule is the key to resolving this case, which pits a common-law rule governing vicarious liability claims against certain procedural provisions of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the common-law rule. The trial court granted that motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed after concluding that application of the common-law rule would conflict with the Act. We agree that the Act necessarily implies an intent to abrogate the common-law rule in the circumstances of this case and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

This case presents a simple issue: Whether the Tennessee Health Care Liability
Act’s statute of limitation extension prevails over the common law rule that a plaintiff
cannot pursue a vicarious liability claim against a principal when the plaintiff’s claim
against the agent is procedurally barred by operation of law before the plaintiff asserts the
vicarious liability claim against the principal. This common law rule is known as the
operation-of-law exception. Here, the Plaintiff filed a vicarious liability suit against the
principal, TriStar Skyline Medical Center, after the one-year statute of limitations had
expired as to Skyline’s agents but within the Act’s 120-day extension of the statute of
limitations as to Skyline. Was the suit timely filed? Yes—the Act’s provisions prevail over
the common law operation-of-law exception.

This appeal arises out of a dog bite incident that occurred at a dog park within an apartment complex. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant who owned the dog that bit her. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff s complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

This appeal presents issues similar to those in Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hospital
Corp., No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2023). In that case, I
dissented from the result reached by a majority of the Court, which held that provisions of
the statutory scheme commonly referred to as the Health Care Liability Act (“HCLA”)
abrogated the common law vicarious liability principle known as the operation-of-law
exception. I reach the same conclusion here and respectfully dissent from the result
reached by the majority in this case.

This appeal arises out of a third-party complaint asserting claims arising from the sale of real property. The trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the thirdparty defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Afterward, the third-party plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to his remaining claim, which was then dismissed without prejudice by the trial court. The third-party plaintiff appeals. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals from the Wayne County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing his ninth petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner argues the habeas corpus court’s order failed to include adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, the State’s answer to the habeas corpus petition was insufficient, and the Warden of Petitioner’s penitentiary was not served with process. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

“When there is a conflict between the common law and a statute, the provision of the statute must prevail.” Graves v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 148 S.W. 239, 242 (Tenn. 1912). That longstanding rule is the key to resolving this case, which pits a common-law rule governing vicarious liability claims against certain procedural provisions of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. The defendant in this case moved for summary judgment under the common-law rule. The trial court granted that motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed after concluding that application of the common-law rule would conflict with the Act. We agree that the Act necessarily implies an intent to abrogate the common-law rule in the circumstances of this case and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

This appeal arises from a juvenile court’s determination of a permanent parenting plan, in which the trial court found all best interest factors to be equal between the parents, granted Mother and Father equal parenting time, and designated them as “Joint Primary Residential Parents.” Mother raises several issues. Generally, she contends that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s findings that all applicable best interest factors were equal between Mother and Father and that the trial court abused its discretion in crafting the permanent parenting plan. We find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings concerning two of the best interest factors. We also find that the court erred, as a matter of law, by designating the parties as joint primary residential parents in the absence of an agreement to do so. In accordance with these findings, we designate Mother as primary residential parent, affirm the trial court’s parenting plan in all other respects, and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.

This case presents a simple issue: Whether the Tennessee Health Care Liability
Act’s statute of limitation extension prevails over the common law rule that a plaintiff
cannot pursue a vicarious liability claim against a principal when the plaintiff’s claim
against the agent is procedurally barred by operation of law before the plaintiff asserts the
vicarious liability claim against the principal. This common law rule is known as the
operation-of-law exception. Here, the Plaintiff filed a vicarious liability suit against the
principal, Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital, after the one-year statute of limitations had
expired as to the Hospital’s agents but within the Act’s 120-day extension of the statute of
limitations as to the Hospital. Was the suit timely filed? Yes—the Act’s provisions prevail
over the common law operation-of-law exception.

This appeal presents issues similar to those in Ultsch v. HTI Memorial Hospital
Corp., No. M2020-00341-SC-R11-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2023). In that case, I
dissented from the result reached by a majority of the Court, which held that provisions of
the statutory scheme commonly referred to as the Health Care Liability Act (“HCLA”)
abrogated the common law vicarious liability principle known as the operation-of-law
exception. I reach the same conclusion here and respectfully dissent from the result
reached by the majority in this case.

The Petitioner, Said Laghrab, pled guilty in the Fayette County Circuit Court to aggravated
assault and received a four-year sentence. Seven years later, he filed a petition for postconviction
relief, and the post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as
untimely. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude
that the Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of
limitations and affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

Defendant, Clifton Weathers Horn, II, pleaded guilty to eight counts of unlawful photography in violation of privacy (with dissemination), one count of attempted tampering with evidence, and fourteen counts of facilitation of sexual exploitation of a minor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to a term of four years in the Department of Correction, followed by one year of supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion or other forms of full alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Jimmy L. Cobble, pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and driving under the influence (“DUI”), fifth offense in exchange for a concurrent sentence of one year in jail followed by seven years of supervised probation. After a violation report was filed and a hearing held, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation, determining that he materially violated the terms of his probation sentence by testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine and by admitting to using heroin and fentanyl. It ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider alternatives to him serving the duration of his eight year sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Marterrius Hite, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of
two counts of first degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child
neglect and received an effective sentence of life plus eighty years in confinement. On
appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions,
(2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce his belt into evidence without
establishing a proper chain of custody, (3) the trial court committed plain error by ruling
he “opened the door” to a police officer testifying that he was arrested on prior warrants,
(4) the trial court committed plain error by commenting on his expert witness’s PowerPoint
presentation, (5) the trial court erred by allowing the jury to deliberate late at night, and (6)
his effective sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Tony Thomas, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in
denying relief. Finding that the issues presented for our review are without merit, waived,
previously determined, or a combination thereof, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

The Petitioner, Deshun Hampton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was
not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss its class action allegations against two defendants on the basis of collateral estoppel. Specifically, the trial court ruled that while a prior determination that Appellant was not entitled to class action certification was not a final judgment on the merits, due to a dismissal of that case without prejudice, the ruling was “sufficiently firm” to have preclusive effect, citing the Restatement (Second) Of Judgments. Because Tennessee law requires a final adjudication on the merits for a judgment to be entitled to preclusive effect, we reverse.

This is a health care liability case. George Gary Ingram ("Ingram") filed a health care
liability action in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County ("the Trial Court") against, among
others, Dr. Michael Gallagher ("Dr. Gallagher') and Chattanooga-Hamilton County
Hospital Authority d/b/a Erlanger Health System ("Erlanger") ("Defendants,"
collectively). Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint naming Dr. Gallagher as the sole
defendant. He thus removed the other defendants, including Erlanger, from the lawsuit.
Dr. Gallagher then filed an answer asserting, as a defense, that his governmental employer,
Erlanger, was not made a party to the action. Consequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter
or amend the Trial Court's order of dismissal as to Erlanger, which was denied. Plaintiff s
claims were dismissed. In Ingram v. Gallagher, No. E2020-01222-COA-R3-CV, 2021
WL 3028161 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2021) ("Ingram I"), we reversed the Trial Court,
holding that the Trial Court erred in denying Plaintiff s motion to revise the order of
dismissal. We pretermitted all other issues. The Tennessee Supreme Court then reversed
this Court, holding that Erlanger was removed from the lawsuit when Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint and that the order of dismissal had no legal effect so there was no order to amend. Our Supreme Court remanded for us to address the remaining issues. We hold, inter alia, that the savings statute is inapplicable as the Governmental Tort Liability Act
("the GTLA") is implicated; that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing Erlanger for lack
of pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith; and that the Trial Court did not err in
granting summary judgment to Dr. Gallagher as his governmental employer, Erlanger, was not made a party. We affirm.

The owners of certain real property sought a prescriptive easement over the parking lot of an adjacent neighbor. The trial court granted the prescriptive easement over the entirety of the neighbor's parking lot. The neighbor appealed. Discerning that the record contains clear and convincing evidence of all the requirements for a prescriptive easement, we affirm. We modify the trial court's judgment, however, by limiting the scope of easement to the route followed when the route was first established. 

Anthony Terrell Brown, Defendant, was convicted by a jury in the Robertson County Circuit Court of first degree premeditated murder. He received a sentence of life in prison without parole. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred when the presiding circuit court judge appointed, by interchange, a trial judge from an adjoining district to try the case, and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child
upon the juvenile court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds
of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, abandonment by failure to visit,
abandonment by failure to support the child, abandonment by wanton disregard for the
child’s welfare, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistent
conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the
child.1 The juvenile court further found that termination of the mother’s parental rights
was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Prior to the marriage, the parties signed an antenuptial agreement that included a provision whereby Husband’s son from a prior marriage would be entitled to one-fourth of the value of the marital property upon divorce. During proceedings in the trial court, Husband filed a petition to hold Wife in criminal contempt. The trial court dismissed Husband’s petition for contempt, granted Husband a divorce on the uncontested ground of adultery, found the provision regarding Husband’s son to be unenforceable, and equitably divided the parties’ marital property. The trial court also declined to award Husband his requested discretionary fees. Primarily based on Husband’s failure to follow briefing requirements, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on all issues.