A three-judge panel has ruled against the state’s effort to end a longstanding lawsuit challenging the vagueness and inadequacy of exceptions to the state’s the near-total abortion ban, Tennessee Lookout reports. Attorneys for the state had asked for a ruling in their favor, without a trial, in a lawsuit brought in 2023 by a group of doctors and women who had suffered serious medical problems during their pregnancies. The American Medical Association subsequently joined the lawsuit. The state had argued that a 2025 amendment adding “medical necessity exceptions” to the ban made the lawsuit moot. The judges concluded that the lawsuit contained sufficiently serious and credible allegations to move forward. In a separate decision last week, the panel also allowed the plaintiffs to access documents from the governor’s office, General Assembly and Department of Health that reveal the “state’s interest in enforcing the amended abortion ban and medical exceptions.” Attorneys for the state since have filed an emergency motion seeking permission to appeal the ruling regarding access to documents.

Four nominees for the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) appeared before a U.S. Senate committee last week to answer questions ahead of their possible confirmation, WBIR reports. Arthur Graham, Mitch Graves, Jeff Hagood and Randall Jones went before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Tennessee’s U.S. senators, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, introduced both Graves and Hagood. The nominees were asked about the challenges they might face in providing both reliable and affordable energy, as well as the impacts of data centers popping up around the state. President Donald Trump previously announced the nomination of Nashville car dealer Lee Beaman, but he was not part of the hearing.

The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) recently installed Nashville-area attorney John A. Day as its 76th president. “It is an extraordinary privilege to serve as president of the American College of Trial Lawyers,” said Day. “The College stands at the forefront of supporting an independent judiciary, ensuring access to justice and advancing the rule of law — principles that are essential to our democracy. I look forward to building on the College’s proud legacy of leadership and service to the profession.” In addition to his role as president of ACTL, Day has served as president of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association and president of the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He is a regular contributor to the Tennessee Bar Journal with the Day on Torts column. Read a press release from the ACTL and see photos from the event.

TBA's "Raising the Bar" program will be held Nov. 19 at Baker Donelson in Nashville. Breakfast will begin at 9:15 a.m. with programming from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This CLE will address the age-old concept of "the grass is greener on the other side," challenging attendees to think instead that "the grass is greener where you water it." The program will encourage participants to live their best life as a lawyer by re-focusing their energy. Adriana Linares — founder of LawTech Partners, nationally recognized legal tech consultant and host of the New Solo podcast — will lead a session on “Tech Tips to Optimize Efficiency and Reduce Stress for Lawyers.” Other speakers will include Meera Ballal, Heidi Barcus, Julie Bennett, Rebecca Blair, Dixie Cooper, Jackie Dixon, Sherie Edwards, Psonya Hackett, Rachel Lawson, Sarah Beth Myers and Laquita Stokes. A networking reception will follow from 4:30 to 6 p.m. All times CST. Click here to register for this annual favorite produced by the Women in the Profession Committee.

The Defendant, Sedrick Darnell Cummings, pled guilty to weapons-related offenses after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant at his residence. As a part of the Defendant’s plea agreement, he sought to reserve a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s decision that the affidavit underlying the search warrant established probable cause to search based upon an anonymous tip and the smell of marijuana. Following our review, we conclude that the certified question clearly identifies the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and that, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the search warrant failed to establish probable cause. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the case is dismissed.

Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated by the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of disciplinary proceedings held at Morgan County Correctional Complex. Because the petition was not notarized and because a notarized petition was not filed within sixty days of the denial of his administrative appeal of that decision, the trial court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. For these reasons, the trial court dismissed the petition. The petitioner appeals. Finding no error with the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

Appellant filed a petition to probate the will of her former husband, asking that she be awarded a life estate in the former husband’s residence, per the terms of the will. The estate was eventually closed by agreed order, which granted Appellant a life estate in the subject property. Appellant thereafter filed a motion to set aside the agreed final order, arguing that her and the decedent’s marital dissolution agreement awarded her at least a one-half ownership interest in the property. The trial court denied the motion after concluding that Appellant did not meet her burden under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Due to profound deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we dismiss this appeal and award Appellees their reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending this appeal.

Appellant, homeowner, appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee, real estate company’s, motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim arising from Appellant and Appellee’s contract for the sale of Appellant’s property. After the expiration of the initial period of the listing agreement, Appellant transferred the property by quitclaim deed to himself and another party. Appellee sought compensation under the contract. Appellant failed to respond to Appellee’s requests for admissions, and the trial court deemed the requests for admissions admitted. Appellant also failed to respond to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and Appellee’s statement of material facts for purposes of summary judgment was undisputed. Despite the admitted facts, the trial court erred in finding that Appellant breached the plain language of the contract. Because Appellee was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, we reverse and remand.

In this appeal, we address whether a defendant may obtain the dismissal of a lawsuit based on a challenge to the plaintiff’s standing asserted for the first time after the jury returned its verdict. Husband and wife Brett and Ceree Houghton were the sole shareholders of a corporation that operated a boat dealership. The company was an authorized dealer of manufacturer Malibu Boats, LLC. After that business relationship fell apart, the dealership went out of business, and the Houghtons each declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the Houghtons successfully sued the manufacturer for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud. A jury awarded $900,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of equity in real property owned by the dealership that was sold at foreclosure when the dealership failed. The manufacturer filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial in which it raised various issues. At the hearing on the motion, however, the manufacturer orally raised a new issue: It questioned the Houghtons’ standing, given that the damages related to real property owned by the dealership instead of them. After the parties submitted briefing, the trial court determined that the Houghtons could not pursue the asserted claims in their own names. Instead, the claims belonged to the dealership and were available to the Houghtons only through a shareholder derivative proceeding. The Houghtons admittedly had not complied with the statutory mechanism for such a proceeding. Thus, the trial court concluded that the Houghtons lacked so-called “statutory standing.” Finding that the lack of statutory standing deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal as of right, the Court of Appeals reversed. The intermediate appellate court determined that so-called “shareholder standing” principles govern this case. Importantly, the court concluded that shareholder standing limitations are not jurisdictional and, therefore, are subject to waiver. The court further concluded that the manufacturer waived its challenge by not timely asserting the issue. We granted permission to appeal. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we hold that the Houghtons had constitutional standing to bring their suit. We further hold that the trial court erred in relying on statutory standing principles to dismiss the suit. Instead, the substance of the standing challenge implicated shareholder standing limitations, and the manufacturer forfeited its challenge. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Open enrollment has begun for TBA’s BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee health plan, an affordable and high-quality association group insurance plan. This exclusive TBA plan is guaranteed issue, with no health questions and no pre-existing condition exclusions. Additionally, the plan includes a $15,000 life insurance policy for each employee enrolled. Don’t delay – get a quote today! Open enrollment ends on Dec. 5. Solo attorney? Explore our health plan built just for solo practitioners.