February 22–March 7, 2025

  • After obtaining a Grandparent Visitation Order over Single Father’s objections, Grandparents file 23-count criminal contempt petition against Single Father, seek to have him jailed for 230 days based on asserted violations of the Grandparent Visitation Order.  After a bench trial, former Williamson County Judge Michael Binkley convicts Single Father on all 23 counts, sentences him to 230 days in jail.  Single Father appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[T]he majority of the counts of criminal contempt” for which Single Father was found guilty are reversed, “the sentence imposed by the trial court” is vacated entirely, and the case is remanded.  [Editorial note: This is a Horwitz Law, PLLC case.  This also is the third reversal at this stage of proceedings alone, the trial court having illicitly issued a prior restraint against a witness and illicitly denied Father an appeal bond during the same time period.]
  • Drunk Lady climbs (uninvited) onto bar stage during performance, is escorted offstage, hits her head, suffers concussion.  Claiming that she was “dropped”—as opposed to having drunkenly “fell”—she sues the bar for negligence.  The case reaches a jury, and during the defense’s opening statement, defense counsel argues that Drunk Lady “hopes in this case to be a lottery lawsuit winner.”  Drunk Lady’s counsel objects, eliciting a curative instruction.  Drunk Lady also is cross-examined about her claimed lost wages during an exchange that references her medical leave benefits; trial court advises the jury that such benefits can be considered only for the limited purpose of reviewing her claimed lost wages.  Jury issues a defense verdict as to liability (thus never reaching damages), and Drunk Lady appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: No error here, and even if there were, it wouldn’t have affected the case’s outcome.  So we affirm.
  • After going into post-surgery septic shock, suffering renal failure, and experiencing respiratory distress, Plaintiff files medical malpractice (“Health Care Liability Act”) action against Medical Providers.  But Plaintiff’s expert is excluded from testifying, thus torpedoing his claim and resulting in it being dismissed.  Plaintiff appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Tennessee law “requires that an expert witness in a health care liability action satisfy three requirements to be competent to testify,” one of which is that the witness “practice a profession or specialty that would make the witness’s expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case[.]”  Here, because Plaintiff’s expert “failed to establish that his emergency room experience qualified him to testify as an expert about the standard of care for an attending surgeon monitoring a still admitted, post-surgical patient for sepsis[,]” the expert was properly excluded from testifying.  And because that ruling was fatal to Plaintiff’s case, we affirm the dismissal of his complaint.
  • In already-once-remanded appeal that arises from the termination of a tenured teacher, Tennessee’s most statistically reversed trial court judge (or something very close to it), who blessedly retired recently, finds that Teacher was terminated without legal cause and orders her reinstated with back pay.  School District appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: For a huge number of reasons, the evidence demonstrates that Teacher was validly terminated from her employment for neglect of duty.  Thus, we reverse without even needing to consider whether the trial court was wrong about a bunch of other bases that supported her termination, too.
  • Tennessee Court of Appeals: One of Tennessee’s other most statistically reversed trial court judges—who “does not appear to have followed the instructions in the [Child Support] Guidelines” and issued an inadequately explained ruling awarding retroactive child support—needs to try again on that point, too.
  • Creditor propounds post-judgment subpoena seeking documents concerning assets related to Judgment Debtor.  Judgment Debtor objects to the subpoena, arguing that the assets are protected from execution, but the trial court declines to quash it.  Judgment Debtor then appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: The judgment below is not final, so we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.  This appeal also seeks review of a hypothetical question, which we can’t review.  So we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and award attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal.  [Editorial note: Finality is a weird concept when a case is in a post-judgment posture.  Also, congrats to Appellees’ counsel Rob Peal on the win.]
  • Decedent’s Husband sues Decedent’s Daughter (born of a prior marriage) over property dispute.  Trial Court: Husband has no interest in the subject property under the Decedent’s will.  And Husband’s claim would be barred by an earlier settlement agreement that included a general release of all claims between the Parties anyway.  So Husband loses, and Daughter get attorney’s fees under a provision of the earlier settlement agreement.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Affirmed in all respects.
  • Payment dispute arises between a non-profit hospital system and a TennCare managed care organization, prompting long-running litigation that has been pending since 2009.  An interlocutory ruling in the case is certified as final under Rule 54.02, which the losing party appeals.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the interlocutory ruling as final.  But because “the lack of a separate legal obligation to pay for the asserted benefit does not bar an unjust enrichment action as a matter of law,” the hospital system should not have had its unjust enrichment claim dismissed on that basis.
  • After failing to prosecute her case for some 2.5 years, Pro Se Plaintiff has her case dismissed for failure to prosecute.  Pro Se Plaintiff then becomes Pro Se Appellant, urges the Tennessee Court of Appeals to rule on a bunch of issues that are not whether her case was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute.  Tennessee Court of Appeals:  “[W]e may review the decisions rendered by trial courts, but we cannot exercise original jurisdiction[,]” and “none of the issues raised by Ms. Lee on appeal were addressed by the trial court or even raised.”  So the trial court’s unchallenged judgment on the only issue that is subject to review on appeal is affirmed.
  • Pro se Appellant seeks third accelerated interlocutory appeal of trial court order denying her motion to recuse.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: Third time’s a charm!  (Just kidding.)  Like the ones before it, Appellant’s third attempt at a recusal appeal is dismissed summarily for failure to comply with (any of) Rule 10B’s mandatory requirements.
  • Pro Se Mother twice seeks recusal of a juvenile court judge overseeing a custody case.  After those motions are denied, she petitions for a writ of mandamus, which the trial court also denies.  Mother (still pro se) then appeals the denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus.  Tennessee Court of Appeals: “The function of mandamus is to direct the execution of a ministerial action,” which this case does not remotely involve, so we affirm.

Firm Updates

Alongside several recent TPPA wins—one of which shelved a nearly quarter-billion dollar liability—Horwitz Law, PLLC and client Leah Gilliam will head to the U.S. Supreme Court, courtesy of the Tennessee Supreme Court’s surprising minority ruling that personalized license plates are secretly communicating messages from the government.  Stay tuned.