Supreme Court Sets Oral Arguments for January in Knoxville

January 6, 2017

The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear four cases on January 10, 2017 in Knoxville, TN.  The details of the cases are as follows: 

  • Judith Moore-Pennoyer v. State of Tennessee, et al.– In this employment case, the Supreme Court will consider whether a person who has prevailed in a judicial election, but not yet assumed the office of judge, acts as a “state officer or employee” for purposes of making administrative staffing provisions.   The Court also will consider whether a judicial administrative assistant is an at-will employee whose employment can terminate at the will of either the administrative assistant or the judge; or whose employment terminates when the judge who hired the assistant is no longer serving as a judge.
  • State of Tennessee v. Rodney Stephens.– This is a direct appeal in which the Supreme Court will decide whether the Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) erred in finding that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Mr. Stephens’ original conviction for aggravated stalking.  The trial court had sentenced Mr. Stephens to three years, with sixty days confinement and the remainder to be served on probation.  Following appeal, the CCA modified the judgment for Defendant’s aggravated stalking conviction to one for misdemeanor stalking and remanded the case for sentencing and entry of a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor stalking.
  • Alexis Breanna Gladden v. Cumberland Trust and Investment Company, et. al.– In this trusts/arbitration case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the signature of the trustee on an investment/brokerage account agreement agreeing to arbitration binds the minor beneficiary of the Trust to conduct arbitration of unknown future disputes or claims.
  • Danny C. Garland, II v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.– In this attorney-discipline case, the Supreme Court will consider whether a trial court erred in affirming the decision of a Board of Professional Conduct hearing panel regarding a lapse in communication with a client.  The Court also will consider whether the trial court erred in upholding the panel’s decision regarding delay caused by the misfiling of a document and mailing a client’s paperwork to the wrong address.

See the schedule of oral arguments, at