Nashville, Tenn. – On May 28, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its May docket in Nashville, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page (https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts).
Beginning at 1:30 pm CDT, the Court will hear the following three cases:
• Jospheen Guirguis et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davison County – This case presents a question of whether Metro Nashville has governmental immunity from a lawsuit arising out of a police shooting. In 2017, Metro Nashville police officers responded to an emergency call related to a domestic dispute. At the scene, officers exchanged gunfire with Michel Guirguis. During the exchange, Jospheen Guirguis and her minor daughter were wounded by gunshots from an officer. In 2018, Ms. Guirguis filed a lawsuit alleging that the officers were negligent and that Metro Nashville was vicariously liable. The Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) generally removes governmental immunity for an injury caused by a negligent act. However, the Davidson County Circuit Court determined that the gravamen of the lawsuit was a civil rights violation. Because the GTLA contains a civil rights exception to its general removal of tort immunity, the trial court concluded that Metro Nashville was immune and dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Ms. Guirguis’ application for permission to appeal to consider whether an officer’s accidental shooting of a bystander constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation and, therefore, qualifies under the civil rights exception in the GTLA.
• Leslie K. Jones v. Tennessee State University – The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider the appeal of Tennessee State University (“TSU”) in a case arising from the termination of an employee. Leslie Jones served as a TSU police officer beginning in 2001. He received multiple warnings about unprofessional conduct over the years, and TSU ultimately terminated his employment in 2012. Although TSU indicated that Mr. Jones was terminated pursuant to at-will provisions in his employment contract, Mr. Jones filed a grievance questioning whether TSU had good cause to terminate him and received an administrative hearing. At the hearing, TSU maintained that Mr. Jones was properly terminated as an at-will employee, but TSU also introduced evidence intended to establish good cause for the termination. The administrative hearing officer determined that TSU properly terminated Mr. Jones based on at-will provisions in his employment contract and that TSU had good cause to terminate him. Upon judicial review of the administrative decision, the Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that a statutory change had altered the at-will relationship between TSU and certain staff, such that TSU was required to establish good cause to terminate Mr. Jones. The court concluded that TSU had relied solely on the at-will provisions, meaning that it had failed to establish good cause. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted TSU’s application for permission to appeal to consider whether TSU was required to establish good cause to terminate Mr. Jones and, if so, whether the record supports the finding of good cause below.
• Mark T. Young, Individually and d/b/a Mark T. Young & Associates v. Bonnie Young Davidson – In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a contempt order against an attorney whose law practice had been placed in receivership. When attorney Mark Young allegedly became unable to make business and financial decisions, his daughter filed a petition to place Mr. Young’s law firm, in which he practiced with another attorney, in receivership. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 29 provides authority for the appointment of a receiver for an “affected attorney,” defined in part as an attorney without a partner, associate, or other successor or representative capable of continuing the law practice. The Hamilton County Chancery Court granted the petition, appointed a receiver, and enjoined Mr. Young from spending or transferring assets or borrowing funds. Mr. Young allegedly violated that injunction, for which he was held in contempt, sentenced to jail time, and fined. Mr. Young appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, Rule 9, section 29 specifies that an appeal from an order appointing a receiver lies directly to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Tennessee Supreme Court will consider whether the trial court had authority under Rule 9, section 29 to place Mr. Young’s law firm in receivership and to issue the injunction Mr. Young allegedly violated.
Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and reach out to Communications Director Samantha Fisher by email at: samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov.
###