August 10–August 16, 2024

• Two of Tennessee’s crappiest lawyers—one of whom filed the first SLAPP-suit ever to be dismissed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and the other of whom once unsuccessfully tried to file his own pro se SLAPP-suit pseudonymously—team up to try their hand at anti-SLAPP defense.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Alas, they f&%! it up.  TPPA petitions are evidentiary petitions, so the defendant’s failure to introduce any evidence to support his TPPA claim is fatal to it.  Also, statements that are sworn on “belief” aren’t admissible.  Also, the aforementioned lawyers made a bunch of statements that are “not consistent” with the transcript and do “not reflect the actual status” of the record below.
• Inmate who is unhappy about having been convicted of First Degree Murder sues his criminal defense lawyer for legal malpractice (editorial note: Tennessee law makes such a claim effectively impossible to win as a practical matter, even for later-exonerated defendants).  Inmate, on account of being incarcerated, files a motion to allow him to appear by video, which the trial court never addresses.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[T]his Court has consistently vacated final orders where trial courts have failed to address incarcerated litigants’ motions to appear via video,” and we do it again here.  So all of the orders that Inmate challenges are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
• Defendant dies.  Even so, his counsel files a notice of appeal on his behalf.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “We cannot agree with Mr. Berryman’s counsel that he did not have a responsibility to inform the trial court of Mr. Berryman’s passing. Again, the lack of a living defendant speaks to counsel’s standing to litigate this case at all.”  So this appeal is dismissed, because the attorneys responsible for this mess did not have standing to appeal the trial court’s decision, and it “is abundantly clear is that Mr. Berryman is deceased and therefore lacks legal existence.”
• Pro se litigant seeks accelerated interlocutory appeal of motion to recuse.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: The motion was filed late.  And the trial court did not exhibit bias in finding that you weren’t indigent given that you stated that you “earned ‘$250,000’” during a 12-month leave of absence, drive an $85,000 car, and “successfully retained three different attorneys” during the proceedings below.
• Pro se appellant prematurely appeals non-final order.  Visibly exhausted Tennessee Court of Appeals: Three show-cause orders later, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice for non-finality.