Nashville, Tenn. – On October 1, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its October docket in Nashville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville and livestreamed here.
Beginning at 9:00 am CDT, the Court will hear the following three cases:
• State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop – Police stopped the defendant, Torrian Seantel Bishop, for driving on a suspended license. An officer smelled marijuana during the traffic stop. The defendant denied having marijuana in his vehicle and stated that “it’s been a while” since he had. Officers nonetheless searched the car and discovered a stolen firearm. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and theft of a handgun. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the warrantless search was invalid. The defendant contended that probable cause was lacking because the officer could not distinguish between the smell of illegal marijuana and that of legal hemp. After the trial court denied the motion, the defendant pleaded guilty. However, he attempted to preserve his search issue for appellate review through a process known as reserving a certified question of law. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the question was not properly before the court because the issue was not dispositive of the case, one of the requirements for reserving a certified question of law. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the defendant’s certified question was reserved properly and whether any modifications to the procedure for reserving certified questions of law are warranted.
• State v. William Tony Burrell – An anonymous caller reported a speeding pickup truck to 911. Shortly thereafter, an officer spotted a pickup truck matching the caller’s description and followed it into a parking lot. The officer pulled in directly behind the truck, effectively blocking it in. When the driver, defendant William Tony Burrell, exited the truck, the officer asked him why he had been “hammering down” the highway. The defendant responded that he was trying to pass someone and admitted that he had consumed a few drinks. The officer assessed whether the defendant was under the influence and decided to arrest him. The defendant was charged with DUI and possession of a handgun while under the influence. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence from his encounter with the officer. The defendant argued that by blocking him in, the officer had seized him without probable cause. After the trial court denied the motion, the defendant pleaded guilty. However, he attempted to preserve his seizure issue for appellate review through a process known as reserving a certified question of law. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal was not properly before it because the defendant did not sufficiently articulate the scope and limits of the legal issue, one of the requirements for reserving a certified question of law. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the defendant’s certified question was reserved properly and whether any modifications to the procedure for reserving certified questions of law are warranted.
• Cinda Haddon v. Ladarius Vanlier et al. – Cinda Haddon was involved in a car accident with another driver. She sued the other driver for negligence. When she was unable to serve her lawsuit on the other driver, however, the case proceeded against her own uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance carrier. A jury awarded Ms. Haddon damages. After trial, Ms. Haddon filed a motion for prejudgment interest. Tennessee law grants a trial court discretion to award prejudgment interest under certain circumstances. In this case, however, the trial court determined that it could not award prejudgment interest because existing Tennessee law specifies that it is unavailable in personal injury actions. Despite denying Ms. Haddon’s motion, the trial court did comment that it would have exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest were it available in this case. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Ms. Haddon’s action against her insurance carrier was in the nature of a contract claim rather than a personal injury claim. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the insurance carrier’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether prejudgment interest is available in this case, and if so, whether the trial court erred in concluding that the equities favored an award of prejudgment interest to Ms. Haddon.
Beginning at 1:00 pm CDT, the Court will hear the following case:
• SH Nashville, LLC et al. v. FWREF Nashville Airport, LLC – The parties in this case entered into an agreement for the sale of a hotel near the Nashville airport. FWREF Nashville Airport, LLC was the seller, and SH Nashville, LLC was the purchaser. The purchaser deposited earnest money toward the sale. Various circumstances caused the parties to extend the date by which the transaction was to be completed, and the purchaser deposited additional earnest money over that time period. Ultimately, however, the purchaser was unable to close the sale on the agreed-upon date. The agreement contained a liquidated damages provision, under which the parties agreed that if the purchaser did not close, the buyer could terminate the agreement and retain the earnest money as liquidated damages. The buyer did just that when the purchaser was unable to close. The purchaser later brought suit, alleging that the liquidated damages provision was an invalid and unenforceable penalty. The seller moved for summary judgment based on the language of the agreement. The trial court, after staying discovery, determined that the liquidated damages provision was enforceable and granted the seller summary judgment on that basis. The Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that the seller had not presented sufficient evidence as to whether the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of potential damages, even though the provision itself stated that the earnest money was a reasonable estimate. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the seller’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the liquidated damages provision was enforceable.
In addition, a fifth case will be submitted to the Court on briefs:
• State v. Jeffrey Tate and Steven J. Ogle – The defendants, Jeffrey Tate and Steven Ogle, were indicted in separate cases for theft of property and home construction fraud. The defendants moved to dismiss the home construction fraud charges, alleging that a portion of the statute setting out the offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court agreed and entered an order to that effect. The State attempted to appeal as of right. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeals. Although the parties had not raised the issue, the court concluded that an appeal as of right was not available to the State because the record did not demonstrate that the substantive effect of the trial court’s ruling resulted in dismissal of the indictments. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals should have given the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issue raised by that court and whether an appeal as of right was available to the State.