Nashville, Tenn. - On September 4, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its September docket in Knoxville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Knoxville and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page here.
Beginning at 9:00 am EST, the Court will hear the following two cases:
• Kendall Collier v. Pericilis Roussis – In June 2009, Kendall Collier went into labor and was admitted to Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center. Shortly after her admission, Collier experienced an allergic reaction to medication to treat a pre-existing infection. In 2012, She filed this lawsuit against the Medical Center and Dr. Pericilis Roussis on behalf of her minor son, Chayce Collier, alleging that Dr. Roussis’s failure to treat her allergic reaction with epinephrine fell below the standard of care and caused her son to suffer brain injuries during birth. After a trial in July 2019, a jury returned a verdict in the Defendants’ favor. Later, Collier discovered that one of the jurors had looked at the warnings on an EpiPen label and had shared this information with other jurors during deliberations. Collier sought a new trial, arguing that the jury considered extraneous prejudicial information. In response, the Defendants argued that the EpiPen label information shared with the jury was consistent with the proof presented at trial and therefore could not be prejudicial. The trial court agreed with the Defendants. Collier appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Defendants’ application for permission to appeal to address the correct standard of proof for determining when a new trial is warranted based on a juror’s consideration of extraneous evidence.
• State v. Ronald Lacy – On June 2, 2015, the victim, Christopher Dyer, contacted the defendant, Ronald Lacy, about purchasing a Mercedes-Benz GL 450 for $80,410. The defendant emailed Mr. Dyer a bill of sale which guaranteed that his company was the legal owner of the vehicle and named Mr. Dyer’s company as the purchaser. On June 10, after confirming receipt of the bill of sale, Mr. Dyer transferred funds to the defendant’s bank in Kentucky, but the defendant did not transfer the vehicle to Mr. Dyer. On June 26, Mr. Dyer reported the situation to the Loudon County Sheriff’s Office. An investigation determined that the vehicle had been purchased by the defendant’s fiancée, Leigh Ann Isaacs, and that the money transferred by Mr. Dyer had been used by the defendant for personal expenditures in Kentucky and South Carolina. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of theft of property valued over $60,000 and received a sentence of ten years. The defendant appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction over the defendant and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s theft conviction.
Beginning at 1:30 pm EST, the Court will hear two related appeals arising from the same case, which have been consolidated for oral argument:
• Sarah Woodruff ex rel. Ethan Woodruff et al. v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. – On August 23, 2013, the Woodruff family’s vehicle was involved in a multi-vehicle accident. Six-year-old Ethan Woodruff was seated on the passenger side in a forward-facing booster seat manufactured by Dorel Juvenile Group, which was secured by a seat-belt extender manufactured by Ford Motor Company. Ethan was allegedly released from the restraint and suffered injuries which left him permanently and completely disabled. Ethan’s mother, Sarah Woodruff, filed this product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and Dorel Juvenile Group, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to warn of the risks associated with using their products together. Dorel moved from summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to warn of the risks associated with another manufacturer’s product. The trial granted Dorel’s motion, and the Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Tennessee law barred the Plaintiffs’ claim against Dorel. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether Tennessee law prohibits a plaintiff from bringing a products liability action alleging that a manufacturer failed to warn of the risks of using its product with another manufacturer’s product.
• Sarah Woodruff ex rel. Ethan Woodruff et al. v. Ford Motor Company – On August 23, 2013, the Woodruff family’s vehicle was involved in a multi-vehicle accident. Six-year-old Ethan Woodruff was seated on the passenger side in a forward-facing booster seat manufactured by Dorel Juvenile Group, which was secured by a seat-belt extender manufactured by Ford Motor Company. Ethan was allegedly released from the restraint and suffered injuries which left him permanently and completely disabled. Ethan’s mother, Sarah Woodruff, filed this product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company and Dorel Juvenile Group, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to warn of the risks associated with using their products together. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to warn of the risks associated with another manufacturer’s product. The trial court denied Ford’s motion for summary judgment but granted an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Tennessee law barred the Plaintiffs’ claims against Ford. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether Tennessee law prohibits a plaintiff from bringing a products liability action alleging that a manufacturer failed to warn of the risks of using its product with another manufacturer’s product.
In addition, a fifth case will be submitted to the Court on the briefs:
• Elliott Schuchardt v. Board of Professional Responsibility – This attorney disciplinary action arises from four complaints filed against Elliott Schuchardt. The conduct at issue in the complaints concerns a series of incidents between 2019 and 2022 while Mr. Schuchardt represented clients in divorce, personal injury, juvenile court, and conservatorship proceedings. After an investigation and an evidentiary hearing, a hearing panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Schuchardt’s conduct violated the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended permanent disbarment. Mr. Schuchardt filed an appeal in Knox County Chancery Court, which affirmed the hearing panel’s decision. He now appeals to the Tennessee Supreme Court, presenting nine issues for review.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and file any required requests to:
Samantha Fisher
Communications Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov