The TBA’s 2024 Litigation Forum is a live virtual event next week on May 16. Programming will include a session covering Tennessee summary judgement, evidentiary privilege and the ethical implications of artificial intelligence from the perspective of the Board of Professional Responsibility. Speakers include Chattanooga attorney David Nagle with Legal Aid of East Tennessee, Nashville attorney Todd Presnell with Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Tiffany Tant-Shafer with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility. The program will run from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT.

Acting under authorization of subsections (1) and (7) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 70-1-305, officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), suspecting violations of wildlife laws, entered onto the Plaintiffs’ properties on multiple occasions, seeking to enforce restrictions upon hunting. The TWRA’s officers did so without a warrant or consent. The Plaintiffs brought suit, asserting that the statute authorizing these entries is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages. A three-judge trial court panel concluded the statute is unconstitutional on its face and granted declaratory judgment and nominal damages. The three-judge panel divided on two issues. One, the majority pretermitted the as-applied constitutional challenge, while the third judge would have found the statute unconstitutional as applied. Two, the majority declined to grant injunctive relief while the third judge would have granted injunctive relief. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency appeals. We conclude the statute is facially constitutional but unconstitutional as applied. We affirm the award of nominal damages.

Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s modification of: (1) the parenting plan for the minor child; and (2) Appellee/Father’s child support obligations. Because the trial court erred in setting the parties’ respective monthly gross incomes for child support purposes, we vacate its order concerning child support and remand for recalculation. The trial court’s order granting Father the federal Child Tax Credit is also vacated. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed.

Two relatives filed competing petitions to adopt a minor child after his mother’s death. The child’s father was unknown. The trial court conducted a comparative fitness analysis and found that it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted by the child’s maternal grandfather. We affirm.

Longtime Nashville intellectual property lawyer Jack Waddey has launched a new firm with Chanelle Acheson. Waddey Acheson will focus on intellectual property, corporate investigations, government investigations, artificial intelligence and litigation. The firm is touting its reliance on technological advances to provide better results at a lower cost. Waddey has more than 50 years of experience. According to a press release, he has secured hundreds of patents and trademarks and served as a mediator since 1998. Acheson has experience in a broad range of complex litigation matters and using technology in case and client management. The firm is located at 1030 16th Ave. S., Floor 2, Ste. 165, Nashville, TN 37212. It can be reached at info@waddeyacheson.com or 615-839-1100.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion yesterday that provides guidance for when a lawyer can seek advice on a listserv. Formal Opinion 511 relies on Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to conclude that seeking advice on a listserv is unethical “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the lawyer’s questions or comments will disclose information relating to the representation that would allow a reader then or later to infer the identity of the lawyer’s client or the situation involved.” In a press release issued with the rule, the ABA says that in most cases, the model rules forbid posting questions or comments relating to a representation unless the lawyer has secured the client’s informed consent. Memphis attorney Brian Faughnan is one of 10 members of the committee that issued the opinion. The TBA is studying this new opinion and will be providing additional information for members.

The petitioner, Ryan Michael Ramey, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition.

A woman fell in a Gallatin, Tennessee grocery store and suffered a labral hip tear. She and her husband filed suit against the grocery store, alleging claims for premises liability and loss of consortium. The case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of the plaintiffs’ proof, the store moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, concluding that the plaintiffs put forth no proof of constructive notice. The plaintiffs appeal; discerning no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from an order denying a nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a wrongful death action commenced by a former resident’s wife. The nursing home argued that the wife was bound by an optional arbitration agreement that she signed during her husband’s admission to the facility. However, the trial court held that the wife was not bound by the arbitration agreement because she signed it in a representative capacity and was not a party to the agreement. This appeal followed. Following the recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC, 685 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2024), we hold that the wife lacked the legal authority to bind her husband to the optional arbitration agreement because she had the powers of only a healthcare agent, and entering into the optional arbitration agreement was not a healthcare decision. Thus, neither the wife nor any of the resident’s heirs are precluded from bringing and maintaining a wrongful death action on the resident’s behalf. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, albeit on different grounds, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Memphis Bar Foundation recently named its 2024 fellows and held its annual Fellows Reception at The University Club of Memphis. The foundation annually nominates attorneys and judges to become fellows based on distinguished service to the legal profession and the administration of justice and adherence to the highest standards of professional ethics and personal conduct. The foundation also awards grants to non-profit organizations to support law-related projects. See the list of 2024 inductees.