July 26–August 1, 2025

  • Plaintiff sues someone in North Carolina.  Plaintiff then discovers that a Tennessee Business might have relevant documents, so Plaintiff obtains a subpoena in North Carolina and domesticates it in Tennessee under the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.  Afterward, Plaintiff serves the subpoena on Tennessee Business and petitions to enforce compliance with the subpoena when Tennessee Business does not respond.  Tennessee Business then responds by filing a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s petition, which the trial court grants.  The trial court also assesses Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: We are baffled by the trial court’s ruling, not only because “[t]he trial court did not make sufficient findings or adequately explain its reasoning so as to permit meaningful appellate review,” but also because it seems a lot like the Plaintiff acted appropriately here, and “[i]t is unclear to this court why the theoretical availability of a process to obtain discovery in North Carolina deprives a Tennessee court of jurisdiction over a Tennessee subpoena.”  We also note, in a footnote, that a trial court adopting a party-prepared order that contains “stark difference[s]” from a trial court’s oral ruling introduces “potential Lakeside problems.”  And in an opinion authored by one of the Court’s most talented writers, we end our decision with an effects/affects typo, so you shouldn’t feel so bad about your typos, either.
  • Tennessee Court of Appeals: This multi-ground appeal arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute over a plumbing issue.  But because the Court’s opinion for some reason is not text-searchable, you will have to flush out the reasons why the tenant loses yourselves.
  • Pro se litigant pursues (two?) accelerated interlocutory appeals of a trial court order denying motion to recuse.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: And if you guessed—based on the preceding sentence alone—that the appeals in question would fail based on non-compliance with the mandatory rules that govern such appeals, you guessed correctly.  Unlike most appeals of this nature that are “dismissed,” though, here, the trial court’s decision is “affirmed” instead (which your Summarist thinks is probably the better approach for various reasons, though the opinion does not address the matter).  Also, the Court reminds readers, ““[t]he word ‘shall’ is equivalent to the word ‘must,’” and recusal appeals are “solely for the purpose of addressing the recusal issue[,]” meaning that “[n]o other issues may be addressed.”
  • Inmate files certiorari action contesting Tennessee Board of Parole decision to deny him parole, remarkably navigates successfully the procedural traps that govern certiorari claims.  Alas, Inmate loses on the merits, so he appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Only Horwitz Law, PLLC wins such cases, which our jurisprudence makes effectively impossible absent extremely narrow legal errors (like this one or this one), and this is not a Horwitz Law, PLLC case.   “Each of [Inmate’s] recommended tasks is clear, definite, and achievable,” so we reject his claim that the Board’s decision should be overturned on the basis that the tasks are “impossible.”  Further, “by stating in writing what [Inmate] can do to improve his chances for parole,” the Board “has complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B).”
  • Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[A] contestant must do more than submit signed copies of prior wills to establish standing for a will contest[,]” so the disinherited Grandson who sought to contest the will at issue here is SOL.
  • Trial court dismisses Plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with the HCLA’s pre-suit notice requirements.  The situation here is even more absurd than usual; despite a technically non-compliant notice, the Defendant both received the notice and “subsequently provided documents” in response to it.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: The Tennessee Supreme Court has already ruled that plaintiffs are screwed under these circumstances, so the trial court’s decision screwing the Plaintiff is affirmed.

Firm Updates

Congratulations to Horwitz Law, PLLC client Kristy Fairchild, who turned tragedy into accountability and a rare near-maximum GTLA recovery.   After Mrs. Fairchild’s beloved son committed suicide in the Rutherford County jail a few years ago following two earlier attempts the same day that did not prompt meaningful intervention, Mrs. Fairchild sued the County for negligence.  And after roughly a year of litigation, the County will now pay $290,000.00 to settle the case—the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act’s preposterously low cap is $300,000.00—for the benefit of Mrs. Fairchild’s granddaughter.