October 4–10, 2025

  • Inmate at a state prison facility is found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules for cursing at another inmate while in the gym.  After exhausting administrative appeals, he petitions for certiorari (he loses).  Inmate then files a motion to alter or amend the trial court’s judgment, which the trial court denies as untimely filed even though Inmate delivered it to personnel at his prison on time.  Afterward, Inmate (pro se) appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Vacated!  “Tennessee rules make special provision for pro se, incarcerated litigants if they deliver their papers to the appropriate individual at their correctional facility within the time fixed for filing[,]” and Inmate followed those rules here.  So we vacate and remand to consider Inmate’s motion to alter or amend on its merits.
  • Shelby County of Board of Education employee injures Plaintiff in a car accident.  Plaintiff wins ~$200,000.00 negligence judgment following a bench trial.  Shelby County appeals, arguing among other things that: (1) Plaintiff failed to prove that the employee was driving in the course and scope of his employment at the time and (2) expert witness testimony was improperly admitted.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: The County’s Answer unqualifiedly admitted that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment (which the County also repeated again in a separate filing).  That made proof on the point unnecessary.  The County also waived objections to the challenged expert testimony by stating during trial that it had “no objection” to the testimony (which wasn’t objectionable anyway).  So we affirm in full.  Despite the borderline frivolity of the appeal, we decline to award frivolous appeal damages, though.
  • Following more than a decade of litigation that would give your Summarist a headache to recount, trial court (on January 31, 2024) enters a final order.  On March 1, 2024, Losing Party files a motion to alter or amend.  Losing Party does not serve said motion until March 4, 2024, though, which is too late.  Trial court denies the motion as untimely served, and Losing Party appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Affirmed.  “Words have meaning, and we are not at liberty to ignore the language of . . . Rule [59.04] as written by the Tennessee Supreme Court,” which requires that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment.”  So the appeal is dismissed as untimely.

Firm Updates

Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Aftyn Behn!  This isn’t a legal thing; it’s just that she won her primary for Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District and we’re proud of her.

And congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Theresa Baldwin!  Ms. Baldwin has been through hell, courtesy of a horrific SLAPP-suit filed by two no-good, very-bad plaintiffs several years back.  She prevailed at the Tennessee Court of Appeals a few months ago, though, and courtesy of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Rule 11 denial this week, that is the end of the road.

And congratulations to new Horwitz Law, PLLC associate Laura Cantwell, who may or may not read this!  Laura passed the bar on Friday, so she will soon be helping to represent some of you.  Congrats, Laura!