Nashville, Tenn. – The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its April docket at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Harvey Auditorium in the Barefoot Student Union Building and will also be accessible by livestream: https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts.
Beginning at 9:00 am CDT, April 8, 2026, the Court will hear the following three cases:
• April Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan Nashville, PLLC et al. – The law firm of Morgan & Morgan led a large class action lawsuit against a group of funeral homes that were alleged to have wrongfully abandoned human remains at the Galilee Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Bartlett, Tennessee between 2011 and 2014. The majority of funeral homes settled before trial. At trial, Morgan & Morgan obtained a favorable jury verdict as to the remaining funeral homes. However, the amount awarded by the jury led the plaintiffs to appeal. The parties ultimately reached a settlement. Thereafter, one of the class members, April Hawthorne, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Morgan & Morgan alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Ms. Hawthorne asserted that Morgan & Morgan failed to adequately negotiate with and accept reasonable settlement offers from the funeral homes involved in the trial, resulting in a smaller recovery for the class. The Shelby County Chancery Court found that the class proposed by Ms. Hawthorne satisfied the requirements for class certification detailed in Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. That decision was subject to an immediate appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to consider the appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision to certify a class, the various requirements for class certification, and whether Ms. Hawthorne has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the proposed class.
• Brenda Sands v. Robert Williard et al. – In December 2019, Brenda Sands allegedly was injured when she tripped on a rise in the sidewalk in front of property owned by Robert and Theresa Williard in Germantown, Tennessee. Ms. Sands filed a negligence lawsuit against the Williards and the City of Germantown in November 2020. The City claimed that it was not served properly and later filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the lawsuit based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. In October 2022, while the City’s motion was pending, the Williards filed a motion to amend their answer to assert comparative fault against the City. Before either motion was decided, Ms. Sands moved to voluntarily dismiss the City from her lawsuit. In February 2023, the Shelby County Circuit Court granted both Ms. Sands’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the City and the Williards’ motion to amend their answer. Almost immediately thereafter, Ms. Sands filed an amended complaint that once again named the City as a defendant in the lawsuit. Ms. Sands relied on a statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, that generally allows a plaintiff a certain period of time within which to add a defendant to an existing lawsuit after a defendant to that lawsuit asserts the comparative fault of that non-party. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that section 20-1-119 did not permit Ms. Sands to bring the City back into the lawsuit. The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals agreed that section 20-1-119 allowed Ms. Sands to add the City to her lawsuit under the circumstances of this case. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the City’s application for permission to appeal to determine the correct interpretation of section 20-1-119.
• City of Milan, Tennessee et al. v. Frederick H. Agee. – In 2021, District Attorney General Frederick Agee requested that the cities of Milan and Trenton, Tennessee provide prosecuting personnel or equivalent funding to support his office’s handling of state criminal cases in their municipal courts. When the cities refused, General Agee indicated that his office would no longer prosecute state criminal cases in their municipal courts. The cities brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to require General Agee’s office to prosecute the offenses. Relying principally on Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-7-103, General Agee argued that a local district attorney general is required to prosecute cases in municipal court only when “the municipality provides sufficient personnel to the district attorney general for that purpose.” The Gibson County Chancery Court, however, found that the cities are not required to provide prosecuting personnel or equivalent funds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to consider whether section 8-7-103 or any other provision of Tennessee law requires a local district attorney general to prosecute state criminal cases in municipal court.
Media planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 media guidelines and contact Communications Director Samantha Fisher by email: samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov
###