This appeal arises from a health care liability action filed in circuit court by a conservator on behalf of a ward. After a three-week jury trial resulted in a mistrial, the conservator took a nonsuit. The conservator refiled the complaint against only one defendant hospital, asserting that it was vicariously liable for the actions of a doctor based on a theory of apparent agency. The defendant hospital moved for summary judgment on the basis that the conservator had entered into a consent agreement agreeing not to sue the doctor in the refiled suit if the doctor agreed to withdraw his motion for discretionary costs. According to the defendant hospital, this agreement releasing the alleged agent from liability extinguished the conservator’s right to pursue a vicarious liability claim against the principal. In response, the conservator took the position that the consent agreement was not binding because it was never approved by the probate court that appointed her. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendant hospital, finding that the order appointing the conservator authorized her to dispose of property, execute instruments, enter into contracts, pursue legal causes of action, and manage money, thereby authorizing her to enter into the consent agreement. The circuit court found nothing in the order of appointment, the relevant statutes, or caselaw that would impose a mandatory requirement for approval of the settlement by the probate court. Because the conservator had released the alleged agent from liability, the circuit court found that the conservator could not pursue vicarious liability claims against the defendant hospital. The conservator filed a motion to alter or amend, asking the circuit court to consider an “Advisory Opinion” of the probate court on the matter. The circuit court denied the motion, explaining that it respectfully disagreed with the Advisory Opinion of the probate court. The conservator appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

In 2019, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Wise, of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to forty-four years of incarceration. The Petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, and we affirmed the convictions but concluded that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. This court modified the Petitioner’s total effective sentence to twelve years. State v. Wise, No. W2018-01343- CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 4492910, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2019), no perm. app. filed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

Make plans now to join the TBA for a webcast on Nov. 9 about the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) and how it can be deployed to provide the alternative resolution dispute community more value at less risk for clients. The one-hour session "Harnessing the Power of AI for Dispute Resolution ... Responsibly" will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CST.

Defendant, Christopher A. Williams, while on parole under a sentence from the Sullivan County Criminal Court, was convicted in federal court for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base. The State filed a detainer based on Defendant's violation of parole. Defendant filed a pro se "Motion to Terminate Parole as Unsatisfactorily Completed/Alternatively Revoke Parole and Impose Sentence in Absentia to Run Concurrent with Federal Supervise Release," which the trial court denied, finding that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD") "does not apply to probation violations." Defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider, asserting that he was denied a due process hearing on his parole revocation. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant appeals. We dismiss Defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Defendant, Alain Benitez, appeals the Smith County Criminal Court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing for his two convictions of first degree felony murder. Upon review, we conclude that we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This appeal arises from a petition filed by a beneficiary of a trust seeking an accounting and removal of the trustee. The trustee asserted the affirmative defense that the beneficiary violated the no-contest clause in the settlor’s trust. The trustee served the beneficiary with requests for admissions, to which the beneficiary responded with objections to the majority of the requests. After the trial court granted his motion for the requests for admissions to be admitted, the trustee filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on the nocontest clauses in the trust and will of the settlor. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the beneficiary’s petition with prejudice. The beneficiary appealed. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this breach of implied warranty of good workmanship and materials case, the trial court awarded Appellee $77,494.36 in damages. Although the parties agree that the proper measure of damages is the cost to repair the defects, the parties dispute the method of repair and its cost. In determining Appellee’s damages, the trial court relied on testimony from Appellee’s expert contractor. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s order. The parties’ respective requests for appellate attorney’s fees are denied.

The employee filed an interlocutory request for medical treatment she claims is needed due to repeated exposures to cleaning supplies used in the course and scope of her employment. The employer denied the claim, asserting there is no evidence that the employee’s alleged pulmonary conditions arose primarily from or were aggravated by workplace exposures to cleaning chemicals. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that the employee had not come forward with sufficient evidence indicating a likelihood of prevailing at trial on the issue of medical causation, and the employee has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record and arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

For the week of October 9, 2023 - October 13, 2023

Longtime Chattanooga lawyer and former TBA President Thomas Maxfield "Max" Bahner died this past Friday at the age of 89, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports. Bahner earned his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1960 and practiced for decades at Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel. Bahner focused his practice primarily in the area of complex litigation. He also was an American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitrator and a Rule 31 certified mediator. He was serving as an emeritus member of the firm at the time of his death. Bahner served as TBA president from 1980-1981. He also served as president of the Chattanooga Bar Association, and for nearly 17 years as a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates, leading the Tennessee delegation for nine years. Service to the Tennessee judiciary included chairing the Tennessee Supreme Court's Advisory Commission on the Rules of Civil Procedure for seven years, during which time the commission wrote the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, and chairing the task force that reviewed and recommended changes to the Tennessee Rules of Judicial Conduct. Funeral services are pending. TBA President Jim Barry called Bahner's passing "a sad day for Tennessee and our profession." Read comments about Bahner's life and legacy from past TBA presidents or this profile of Bahner from 2017.