Recordings from the TBA’s 2025 Administrative Law Forum are now available on-demand as a 1-click CLE package. Programming features an ethics update from the Board of Professional Responsibility, a session delving into warrantless searches by administrative agents, and a discussion of practice tips in administrative hearings from Chief Administrative Judge Phillip Hilliard and Administrative Judge Mary Collier. Earn one dual and two general CLE credits with just one click.
 

Entries for the TBA Administrative Law Section's Annual Writing Competition for law students currently enrolled in a Tennessee law school are due April 30. The section hosts the competition to promote an interest in and understanding of administrative law in the state, and to strengthen the relationship among administrative law professors, students and practitioners in Tennessee. The winning submission will be published in the Administrative Law Section newsletter and the winner will be awarded $1,000. View the competition rules for more information.

It's been an amazing bar year, and it’s all because of our awesome members and your support, participation and belief in this work! Thank you for being here and for continuing to support the Administrative Law Section.

Our Administrative Law Forum took place in December and was well-attended. With distinguished guest speakers Laura Chastain, Jerry Taylor, Bill Penny, Administrative Judge Mary Collier and Chief Administrative Judge Phillip Hilliard, we were both engaged and entertained as we brought the year to a close. And now it’s already time for our annual writing competition! Do you know a law student who could really use $1,000? Please share our competition rules with them or remind any of the Tennessee law schools of this great opportunity for their students. The deadline for submissions is April 30.

If there’s an administrative law topic you’d like to see covered soon, or you want to submit an article to our TBA Administrative Law Connect newsletter, please reach out to me (sarah.booher@tn.gov) or Section Coordinator Brooke Leeton (bleeton@tnbar.org) with your ideas. We look forward to talking with you!

Sarah M. Booher

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Retired employees of the Kellogg Company and FedEx Corporation sued their respective employers and pension plans for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs, each of whom are married participants in employee pension plans, alleged that their plans used outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits, which improperly decreased those benefits in violation of ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirement. The district courts dismissed the actions on the ground that ERISA does not require pension plans to use particular mortality tables or actuarial assumptions when calculating benefits for married participants. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Retired employees of the Kellogg Company and FedEx Corporation sued their respective employers and pension plans for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs, each of whom are married participants in employee pension plans, alleged that their plans used outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits, which improperly decreased those benefits in violation of ERISA’s actuarial equivalence requirement. The district courts dismissed the actions on the ground that ERISA does not require pension plans to use particular mortality tables or actuarial assumptions when calculating benefits for married participants. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

Defendant, Steve F. Mabe, Jr., appeals from his Smith County Criminal Court convictions for evading arrest, simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell or deliver, and manufacture of a Schedule VI controlled substance, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress all evidence against him and that the indictment should have been dismissed based upon a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Santory Alexander Johnson, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his untimely petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by (1) finding he forfeited his right to counsel and requiring him to proceed pro se and (2) finding due process did not require the tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Jamie Cunningham, appeals the Grundy County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his untimely second amended petition for writ of error coram nobis. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

This is an appeal from a will contest wherein the decedent executed the will at the hospital where he was a patient. Two hospital employees signed the will as attesting witnesses, and their signatures were then notarized by another staff member. After the decedent died, his son contested the validity of the will, and the matter was set for a hearing. The proponent of the will attempted to serve subpoenas on the two attesting witnesses at the hospital where they signed the will, one by process server and the other by certified mail. Neither attempt at service was successful, and consequently, neither of the attesting witnesses appeared at the will contest hearing. The notary did appear and testified as to the identity and presence of the attesting witnesses at the will’s execution. The proponent of the will sought to have both witnesses declared unavailable. The trial court declared unavailable the witness who was served using a process server but declined to do the same regarding the witness who was served by certified mail. Consequently, the court determined that the will was invalid. The proponent of the will appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it made a distinction between serving a subpoena using a process server and serving a subpoena by certified mail. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

March 9, 2026 - March 13, 2026.