Question 1: Under the Tennessee Constitution, may a county be split into two separate judicial districts?

Opinion 1: Yes. The General Assembly has the authority to establish inferior courts, determine their jurisdiction, and allocate judicial power among them. We discern no constitutional bar to establishing separate judicial districts within a single county.

Question 2: If a county can be split into two separate judicial districts, can the districts share the same infrastructure such as a courthouse or jail?

Opinion 2: It might be possible for multiple judicial districts in the same county to share a courthouse, but doing so would involve a number of jurisdictional and logistical wrinkles that would have to be carefully negotiated. We do not perceive any limitation on two districts in the same county
sharing a jail.

Question 1: Is a municipality’s levying of an occupancy tax subject to the caps set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-1402(a)(2) if the municipality collects the occupancy tax pursuant to a private act that existed on or before July 1, 2021, and authorizes the municipality to “levy and collect” an
occupancy tax “in an amount not to exceed 5%,” but the municipality’s governing body did not vote to levy the full 5% until after July 1, 2021?

Opinion 1: No.

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, does Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-1402(a)(3) exempt the municipality from the caps in subdivision (a)(2) if the municipality’s private act, effective before May 1, 2025, authorizes the municipality to “levy and collect” an occupancy tax “in an amount
not to exceed 5%,” but the municipality’s governing body did not vote to levy the full 5% until after May 1, 2025?

Opinion 2: Because of the answer to Question 1, the question as posed is moot.

The petitioner, Benjamin Hartshaw, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court’s order requiring it to pay additional temporary total disability benefits despite the employee’s authorized physician previously placing her at maximum medical improvement. The employee sustained a compensable right shoulder injury for which the employer provided workers’ compensation benefits. The authorized treating physician placed her at maximum medical improvement and released her to return to work, but the employee was unable to perform the duties of her job and asked to return to her physician. After objective testing revealed a need for additional treatment related to the work injury, including surgery, the authorized physician rescinded his prior determination that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement and restricted her from working. The employer declined to pay additional temporary total disability benefits. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employee had met her burden of proving she will likely prevail at trial in showing she is entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits, and the employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

As part of the TBA’s effort to help educate members about the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Sept. 16 order — which solicited comments on seven areas of possible regulatory changes to the legal profession — the TBA Legal Access and Regulatory Reform Task Force will hold a virtual town hall on Jan. 22 beginning at noon CST. This town hall, the first of several to be planned, will be geared toward attorneys who practice in rural areas. The event will start with a 20-minute presentation by University of Tennessee Winston College of Law Professors Ben Barton and Alex Long. Then McMinnville lawyer Mike Galligan will moderate a discussion about the seven issues presented in the order, including concerns and possible solutions. Attendees are encouraged to review the TBA’s Legal Access & Regulatory Reform resource page before attending. Register for the town hall here.

Join your colleagues in Nashville on Jan. 23 for a full day of in-person construction law education tailored to both new and experienced practitioners, featuring introductory morning sessions that build foundational knowledge and advanced afternoon sessions delving into complex issues. The morning program provides a practical overview of essential topics, including preserving and enforcing lien rights, reviewing recent case law developments, and avoiding common construction law mistakes. After lunch, the focus shifts to more advanced matters, beginning with payment obligations and statutory compliance under the Prompt Pay Act, followed by an exploration of the growing role of artificial intelligence in construction projects and legal practice, and concluding with ethics considerations unique to construction law to support strong professional judgment and compliance. Reserve your spot today!

Troy Lee Bowlin II, an attorney in Knox County, was censured by the Tennessee Supreme Court on Jan. 14. Bowlin was hired by a Virginia resident for a potential dispute in Virginia though he is not licensed to practice law in Virginia. The court found that Bowlin failed to respond to inquiries from the client, and a few months later, his office prepared a pro se pleading for the client to file in Virginia. He also was found to have called opposing counsel to ask for a continuance, and gave the client advice about the Virginia filing. The court determined that these actions violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16 and 5.5.

Rhea County lawyer Carol Ann Barron was censured by the Tennessee Supreme Court on Jan. 14. Barron is a notary public, and she needed to notarize her client’s signatures in a transfer of property. Her notary stamp was not in her office, but her assistant is also a notary. Barron received permission to use the assistant’s notary stamp, and Barron then notarized the signatures of her clients by signing the assistant’s name and using the assistant’s notary stamp on a deed. She did not indicate that she was signing someone else’s name “with permission.” The court found that these actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 4.1 and 8.4(c).

The Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officers exclusively carry the the SIG SAUER P320 handgun. Critics of the gun, including plaintiffs’ attorneys and some law enforcement advocates, argue it is inherently defective, citing more than 100 lawsuits nationwide and accounts of alleged unintentional discharges that occurred without the trigger being pulled. They point to the gun’s pre-cocked design, short trigger pull and lack of external safeties on some models, noting that juries have sided with injured users and some police departments have moved away from the weapon. SIG SAUER and the KPD counter that the P320 meets or exceeds all safety standards, has been extensively tested and has performed reliably in KPD’s rollout, with officers firing more than 350,000 rounds without incident. Organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police say they are closely monitoring the gun's use for officer safety. WVLT Channel 8 has the story.

A proposal to place Memphis-Shelby County Schools (MSCS) under a state-appointed oversight board is advancing in the Tennessee legislature, though lawmakers remain divided over how much authority such a board should have. Memphis Republican sponsors Sen. Brent Taylor and Rep. Mark White have proposed an oversight board of local residents empowered to make final decisions on the district’s budget and superintendent. Chalkbeat reports that senate leaders have pushed back on limiting local political input, while Democrats oppose the measure outright, citing failed past state interventions. SB714/HB662 is likely headed to a conference committee after both chambers declined to adopt each other’s versions, setting the stage for a compromise. Last year, Taylor and White's legislation made its way through the committee process and was voted on by the House and Senate, but the two chambers could not reach a resolution. In related news, according to the Commercial Appeal, the Shelby County Commission on Monday voted to keep all nine MSCS school board seats on the ballot for reelection. Five MSCS board members and the district in December sued the Shelby County Election Commission, arguing that new state and county election changes unlawfully shorten their four-year terms by forcing them onto the 2026 ballot.