Case Notes

State of Tennessee v. Hayden Jennings Berkebile by Meg Parent

In 2022, the State of Tennessee prosecuted Berkebile, even though there was (and still is) no law expressly criminalizing the encouragement of suicide in Tennessee. Following his conviction, Berkebile appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. This case is notable because it is a case of first impression and significantly expands the scope of criminal negligence. The impact of this decision is yet to be seen. However, this Note argues that Tennessee legislators should enact a law explicitly criminalizing the acts of encouraging, inciting…

A Splash Too Far: Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute After Beckham v. City of Waynesboro by Austin Selz

The year is 1955, and you and your spouse find the perfect spot to settle down, build a home, and start a family. A quaint parcel tucked up along the edge of a rocky embankment with an immaculate view out over the Tennessee River. You put in a bid with crossed fingers, and lo and behold, you win! However, as construction begins, you notice that people frequent the embankment to fish. You confront them about their choice to fish on your property…

State of Tennessee v. Green by Sara Andersen

The recent legalization of hemp in Tennessee raises the question of whether the “distinct odor of marijuana” by law enforcement still supports probable cause to conduct a search for contraband, as both substances are derived from the same plant and share a common odor. In State v. Green, the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed this issue. There, the trial court granted Andre Green’s…

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson by Isabella Morrow

Does a criminal penalty for sleeping on public property constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment? The United States Supreme Court answered “no” to this question in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. The number of homeless individuals has reached its highest level since the Department of Housing and Urban Development began reporting…

Doll v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee by Ashlyn Doane

Professional discipline cases begin with disciplinary hearings before a hearing panel. The procedure is similar to trials because it features transcripts, sworn testimony, and the observation of rules of evidence and civil procedure. The respondent attorney, or the Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), may appeal the panel’s decision in circuit or chancery court.6 If dissatisfied, either party can appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In many ways this process mirrors other judicial proceedings…

All Shook Up – The Impact of the ELVIS Act on the Right to Publicity in Tennessee by Riley M. Rodgers

The ELVIS Act is an amendment to Tennessee’s existing statutory right to publicity, which has not been substantially altered since the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, a forty year old act that addresses the unauthorized monetization of a musician’s name, image, and likeness.6 The ELVIS Act makes several amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 47, Chapter 25 by expanding existing law dealing with “consignment of art,”7 but this Note will focus on three primary changes: (1) the establishment of “voice” as a property right and the protections thereby afforded to it…

State v. Thomas by Megan McQueen

Since the late nineteenth century, the accomplice- corroboration rule has protected criminal defendants from potentially unreliable accomplice testimony. Tennessee courts supported this common law doctrine for years, upholding its application in various situations. However, in the recent case of State v. Thomas, the State implored the Tennessee Supreme Court to abolish the long-standing rule. The Court agreed, holding that the accomplice-corroboration rule was outdated and unnecessary. As a result, working on a prospective basis, the Court abandoned the rule, overruling a century-old law in one swift…

Tyler v. Hennepin County by Evan Kluth

The issue in this case is whether a government keeping excess proceeds from a tax foreclosure sale of a property is a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause says, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” To state a claim for a taking, a citizen must show that the government took private property for public use without compensation. In this specific case, Ms. Tyler needed to show that she had property rights in the proceeds of a tax-foreclosure sale, and that the government took those proceeds (and thus the property rights) for public use.

National Pork Producers Council V. Ross by Ethan Rose

National Pork Producers v. Ross strengthened the ability of states to regulate their economies even when the regulations have extraterritorial effects. This is especially true for larger states that have a significant extraterritorial impact due simply to the size of their markets. They are free to attempt to craft regulations that choose between their preferred market operations and methods of operation so long as that preference is not “in-state businesses.” This also creates some risk that smaller states may be left behind if they try to enact regulations that are incompatible with regulations adopted by larger states. This decision empowers the states, and thus the people, to regulate what kind of goods can be sold in their markets.

Samia v. United States by Haden C. Blair

The case of Samia v. United States deals with the admissibility of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that implicates another defendant indirectly. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 allows such confessions with altered details, claiming that the Confrontation Clause is not violated due to historical practices and the presumption that jurors follow instructions.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh by Camille Alley

The case of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh involves the secondary liability of social media giants Twitter, Facebook, and Google under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for failing to prevent terrorist organizations from using their services. The Supreme Court ruled that the platforms’ inaction did not constitute aiding and abetting, and highlighted the need for congressional action to address internet platform immunity.

MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC by Paul Henken

Trust is integral to an adversarial system. When a party disclaims the use of a procedural tool, only to later evoke that tool to blindside the appellate process, the integrity and efficiency of the legal system is damaged. This bait-and-switch behavior is central to MOAC Mall Holdings LLC. v. Transform Holdco LLC (“MOAC”).

Youth Behind Bars: Analyzing the Constitutional Implications in State of Tennessee v. Booker‘s Juvenile Sentencing Dilemma by Tyler Rapper

In 2015, then sixteen-year-old Tyshon Booker robbed and murdered G’Metrik Caldwell.[1] Because of his actions, a jury later convicted Mr. Booker of two counts of first-degree felony murder.[2] According to Tennessee’s sentencing scheme, this conviction triggered an automatic life sentence, encompassing a sixty-year term with the provision for release after fifty-one years, contingent upon the acquisition and preservation of all applicable sentencing credits.[3] Therefore, as a minor, Mr. Booker received a sentence without the benefit of a sentencing hearing, condemning him to incarceration until at least the age of sixty-six years old.[4] Under Tennessee law, Mr. Booker’s age, maturity, or any other mitigating circumstances were irrelevant when receiving this sentence.