The Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board have adopted a standing order complying with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s disaster plan for trial courts in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Judicial Districts, which was put in place following severe flooding from Hurricane Helene. While the courts were created by legislation rather than the state Constitution, they are subject to the Tennessee Supreme Court and have concluded that the court’s disaster plan affects claims under their jurisdictions. The plan allows a 45-day extension of mandatory deadlines for the identified districts. Read more in a release.

The TBA is embarking on a series of articles across its communication platforms to help educate Tennessee lawyers about the state's system of indigent representation, which plays a crucial role in ensuring that individuals who are constitutionally entitled to legal counsel but cannot afford to hire an attorney are provided with competent legal representation. Upcoming primer topics will cover the role of guardians ad litem, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) Claims and Payment system, and examples of programs from other jurisdictions. Read today's first installment, which looks at the basics of the system, including what kinds of cases qualify for appointed counsel and what happened during the last legislative session to increase funding for indigent representation. All primer articles will be accessible from this landing page.

The 2024 Creditors Practice Forum will take place in person in Nashville on Nov. 14 from 10 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. CST. The event will be held at the Tennessee Bankers Association, 211 Athens Way, Nashville 37228. This year’s forum will feature a case law update, a review of the Davidson County Local Rules of Court and more. Three general and one dual CLE credits are available. Creditors Practice Section members enjoy discounted registration and other benefits. Not a section member? Join here.

Level up your firm’s productivity, cash flow, and client satisfaction with LawPay. Capture more billable time with start and stop timers, simplify billing by creating invoices using the time-tracking entries you log, and streamline payments with online debit, credit, and eCheck payment offerings and Pay Later legal fee financing — which provides your firm with the full invoiced payment upfront, while clients pay over time. Give your firm LawPay today and get a $250 gift card when you sign up and process $500 in your first 30 days! Terms and conditions apply. Get started >>

A swearing in ceremony for those who passed the July 2024 Tennessee Bar Exam was held in Memphis today. The event wrapped up a week of events held in Knoxville, Nashville and Jackson. Constance Brown and Cole Harrell-Morris from the TBA’s Young Lawyers Division were on hand to congratulate the new admittees. See photos from today's event.

A U.S. judicial rulemaking panel has rejected a proposal to relax the longstanding ban on TV and audio broadcasts of federal criminal trials, Reuters reports. Media organizations had sought to loosen the ban. In a near unanimous vote, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules accepted a recommendation from a subcommittee to take no action and continue to disallow cameras in federal criminal trials.

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on whether Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan had the authority to vacate Pervis Payne’s death sentence in 2022 and replace it with two life sentences to be served concurrently. Payne was convicted in 1988 for the stabbing deaths of Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter. He has been in jail for 37 years and has maintained his innocence since being convicted. Payne appealed his case under a new state law that allows defendants to challenge death sentences if they are deemed to have an intellectual disability. The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office argued that Skahan had the authority to reduce Payne’s death sentence to life but not to change the structure of the sentences from consecutive to concurrent. Payne’s attorney argued the court had authority to do both since state law gives it “original and subject matter jurisdiction over all criminal matters that come before” it. Daily Memphian looks at the arguments.

Circuit Judge. The Judiciary Act of 1789 required Justices of the Supreme Court to “ride circuit” by traveling great distances to resolve cases on the new circuit courts. See Pub. L. No. 1-20, § 4, 1 Stat. 73, 74–75. Losing litigants could then appeal their decisions to the Supreme Court. See id. § 13, 1 Stat. at 81. Some Justices raised “constitutional and practical” objections to this circuit-riding duty. David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 54 (1997). Worried about appearances of bias if the full Court affirmed a colleague, they wrote to President Washington that observers might think “mutual interest” on the Court “had generated mutual civilities and tendernesses injurious to right.” 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1573, at 440 n.1 (1833). But the Court later upheld the constitutionality of circuit riding, reasoning that the practice’s continuation for a decade had “fixed” the Constitution’s “construction.” Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. 299, 309 (1803).

The issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court erred in declining to dismiss a self-represented employee’s case due to his alleged failure to comply with certain terms of the trial court’s scheduling order. After the employee failed to timely provide information as required by the terms of the scheduling order, the employer filed a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court declined to dismiss the case, concluding that the employer had relied on precedent that did not apply to the circumstances of the present case. The court further indicated it would “hold[] the motion in abeyance,” to be re-addressed “at the close of [the employee’s] case in chief.” Upon careful consideration of the record, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case.