December 29, 2025–January 11, 2026
Intermediate Scrutiny—a Tennessee Court of Appeals blog—is a snappy weekly newsletter from Tennessee appellate attorney Daniel A. Horwitz summarizing the week’s decisions from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. To subscribe, click here. Past newsletters can be found here.
- Worker falls off a ladder, sustains serious injuries while working at a farm. Worker then sues the Farm Owner, who did not maintain workers’ compensation insurance. Farm Owner insists that Worker was an independent contractor or otherwise was an agricultural laborer for purposes of Tennessee’s workers’ compensation statute. The trial court rules for Worker on all issues but limits Worker’s damages based on the schedule set forth in Tennessee’s workers’ compensation statute. Tennessee Court of Appeals: We affirm the finding that Worker was both an employee and a non-agricultural laborer. But when, as here, “an employer does not comply with the requirements of section 50-6-405, an injured employee is not limited to the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation nor is the employee’s recovery limited by the compensation schedule set forth in the Workers’ Compensation Law.” Thus, Worker is entitled to an increased economic damages award, and he is entitled to have his claims for non-economic damages considered, too.
- Memphis’s most famous rib and barbecue joint has some messy internal conflict among sibling shareholders. Tennessee Court of Appeals: But whatever the correct outcome of the disputes involved, the probate court had no business adjudicating them, so everything it ruled is void. “[T]he subject-matter jurisdiction of a trial court in Tennessee is established by constitution or statute and not by enactments of a county legislative body.” “Therefore, the Chancery Court’s reliance on the ordinances to establish the probate court’s jurisdiction was error, and the transfer order was ineffective to confer jurisdiction on the probate court.”
- Defendants file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer by the deadline set forth in a scheduling order for filing a “responsive pleading.” At the resulting hearing, the Defendants also move orally for their fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c)(1). The trial court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss but denies their request for fees on the ground that fees were not sought in advance of hearing by written motion. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “Outside the context of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01, Tennessee precedent seems to recognize that motions to dismiss constitute responsive pleadings,” so there was no waiver of the right to file a motion to dismiss here. Separately, the Defendants’ “oral motion for an award of costs and fees under § 20-12-119(c) had a connection and was incidental to the matter set for hearing[,]” so it was timely. “We also note that, ‘[a]s a general rule, every citizen is presumed to know the law.’ Burks v. Elevation Outdoor Advert., LLC, 220 S.W.3d 478, 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). Thus, it was unnecessary for the [] Defendants to notify [Plaintiff] of its right to withdraw or amend its claims under § 20-12-119(c)(5)(C) to avoid an award under § 20-12-119(c)(1).”
- Man slips, falls on accumulated snow and ice in the parking lot of a Kroger. The trial court grants the Defendants—Kroger and the deicing company it used—summary judgment based on its conclusion that Man was more than 50% at fault, and Man appeals. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[C]ontrary to the trial court’s finding, th[e] evidence creates a question of fact regarding whether the path [Man] used to enter the store was clear and safe. When [that] evidence and all reasonable inferences from it are viewed in the light most favorable to [Man] as the non-moving party, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the Defendants breached their duty of care.” And “this determination affects the trial court’s comparative fault analysis,” so we reverse.
- Tennessee Court of Appeals: “This appeal concerns the trial court’s granting of a petition to extend an order of protection for ten years after finding that the respondent violated the original order of protection multiple times and failed to appear for hearings throughout the litigation. Because none of the issues the appellant raises were raised in the trial court, we dismiss the appeal” and award fees.
- Dispute over contract for financing of expensive automated bagging equipment spills into Davidson County Chancery Court after Defendants (who are not licensed to finance in Tennessee) refuse to refund Plaintiff’s deposit. Tennessee Plaintiff seeks relief against Minnesota Defendants “who have no business activities in Tennessee except for this one transaction with the [P]laintiff.” Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[W]e must look ‘to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” And here, “the factual allegations in the complaint, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials Plaintiff relies upon fail to establish sufficient contacts between Defendants and Tennessee with reasonable particularity.” “Further, they fail to establish that Defendants purposefully directed activities at Tennessee or availed themselves of doing business in this state in such a way that they should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Tennessee.” So we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
- Tennessee Court of Appeals: “Tennessee law is clear that when a legislative body does not comply with statutory requirements when passing zoning ordinances, those ordinances are void.” And here, that means that a quarry gets to operate, because there was no valid zoning ordinance enacted to prohibit it from operating.
- Appellant files certiorari action regarding a reinstatement and back pay issue, nonsuits it, then files a mandamus action regarding the back pay issue. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Can’t do that. “Appellant asked the trial court to use its original jurisdiction to hear her petition, which was filed in a case that originated under the trial court’s appellate jurisdiction, i.e., Appellee’s petition for judicial review,” and that’s a big no-no under Tennessee law. “Furthermore, the relief Appellant seeks is unavailable in a mandamus action[,]” which “is to execute, not adjudicate.”
- Pro se Appellant pursues accelerated interlocutory review of a trial court order denying her motion to recuse. Tennessee Court of Appeals: Per usual, this appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to comply meticulously with Rule 10B’s strict mandatory requirements.
- Does Tennessee’s order of protection mandate extending an existing ex parte order of protection upon finding that a predicate act was proven, regardless of whether or not there is any ongoing danger? Two-thirds of a Tennessee Court of Appeals panel, in conflict with a previous unreported Tennessee Court of Appeals case: “[T]he statutory language mandates extending an order of protection when an ex parte order has been issued and the predicate of domestic abuse is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” Previous precedent on the matter “relies upon reading the purpose provision in a manner that, in our view, exceeds how purpose is to be used when engaging in statutory interpretation.” So we remand for a finding as to whether there was domestic abuse here. One-third of a Tennessee Court of Appeals panel, dissenting: “[T]he legislative purpose behind the statutes is (1) to protect and (2) to prevent further harm to the victim.” Given that, a current showing of some need to prevent harm is necessary. So I’d go with our existing precedent, which is necessary to avoid serious policy consequences. [Editorial note: This case is destined for Tennessee Supreme Court review.]
- Tennessee Court of Appeals, in companion case in which an ex parte order of protection was not issued: “Where the decision to grant is discretionary rather than mandatory, it is entirely appropriate for a court to consider ongoing existing danger as part of its exercise of discretion in determining whether to issue an order of protection.” Thus, “a trial court does not err by considering a lack of ongoing existing danger as part of its reasoning in deciding whether or not to issue an order of protection,” which is what the trial court did here. So we affirm the denial of the order of protection. Concurrence: “[T]here was insufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff needed the protection available, regardless of whether an ex parte order of protection had been issued prior to the hearing.”
Firm Updates
We were back at the Tennessee Court of Appeals ourselves this week. Watch the oral argument here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDh35Ez-XdM
