Tennessee Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments for May Docket in Nashville

Nashville, Tenn. - The Tennessee Supreme Court has four cases on its May 29, 2025 docket in Nashville, Tennessee.  Oral arguments in three cases will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Nashville, beginning at 9:00 a.m. CST, and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page.  The details for the cases scheduled for oral arguments are as follows:

•    Tinsley Properties, LLC et al. v. Grundy County – Tinsley Properties, LLC and Tinsley Sand & Gravel, LLC (collectively, Tinsley) sought a permit to operate a sand quarry in Grundy County. The County denied the application because the proposed quarry would be within 5,000 feet of residential property in violation of a county resolution. Tinsley brought this action in Grundy County Chancery Court challenging the resolution’s validity, arguing that the resolution is a zoning ordinance that does not comply with state law.  The Chancery Court rejected Tinsley’s challenge, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Tinsley’s application for permission to appeal to determine (1) whether the resolution falls within the exception in the County Powers Act which prohibits counties from regulating businesses which are subject to state regulation under the Tennessee Air Quality Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977; and (2) in the alternative, whether the resolution is an invalid zoning ordinance that fails to comply with the procedural requirements of the County Zoning Act.

•    Jo Carol Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC et al. – This direct appeal arises from a workers’ compensation case.  In 2020, Jo Carol Edwards was involved in a serious vehicle accident while working.  She was transported to the emergency room, where she reported pain in several areas, including both knees.  Her employer, Peoplease, LLC, accepted the workers’ compensation claim and authorized medical treatment.  Over the course of two years, Edwards consulted four orthopedic surgeons for pain and loss of function in both knees.  All four surgeons agreed that Edwards suffered from pre-existing osteoarthritis and needed total knee replacements, but they reached differing conclusions as to whether the osteoarthritis or the accident was the primary cause of Edwards’ need for surgery.  After a hearing, the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims found that the accident was the primary cause of Edwards’s need for surgical treatment and awarded benefits.  A divided panel of the Appeals Board reversed, concluding that Edwards had failed to show that her need for bilateral knee replacements was more than 50% caused by the accident.  Edwards directly appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.  The Court decided to resolve the case without referring it to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in order to clarify the applicable standards for workers’ compensation claims based on the aggravation of a pre-existing injury.      

•    Berkeley Research Group, LLC v. Southern Advanced Materials, LLC – In 2019, the defendant, Southern Advanced Materials, retained the plaintiff, Berkley Research Group, to provide consulting and support services for a New York litigation matter.  The parties entered into an agreement which provided that any dispute would be resolved by arbitration.  The agreement specified that any arbitration would take place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that an award from the arbitration could be entered by “any State or Federal Court having jurisdiction thereof.”  After a dispute arose over unpaid invoices, the parties mutually agreed to conduct the arbitration virtually.  In August 2022, the arbitrator issued a final ruling in favor of Berkeley Research Group, awarding $433,815.34.  Berkeley Research Group filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award in Shelby County Chancery Court. Southern Advanced Materials moved to dismiss the award for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.  After a hearing, the Chancery Court entered an order confirming the arbitration award.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Chancery Court lacked personal jurisdiction because Southern Advanced Materials did not have sufficient contacts with Tennessee to confer jurisdiction.  The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Berkley Research Group’s application for permission to appeal to determine (1) whether Tennessee courts have subject matter jurisdiction over an action that arises from an arbitration that, by agreement, was to occur in another state, and (2) if subject matter jurisdiction does exist, whether Southern Advanced Materials consented to personal jurisdiction by agreeing that the arbitration award could be entered by “any State or Federal Court having jurisdiction thereof.”      

In addition, a fourth case will be submitted to the Court on the briefs:

•    Connie Reguli v. Board of Professional Responsibility – This attorney disciplinary action arises from nine complaints filed against Connie Reguli.  The conduct at issue in the complaints concerns a series of incidents between 2015 and 2018 while Ms. Reguli represented clients in divorce, custody, and juvenile court proceedings. After an investigation and an evidentiary hearing, a hearing panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility found that Ms. Reguli’s conduct violated the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended permanent disbarment.  Ms. Reguli filed an appeal in Williamson County Circuit Court, which affirmed the hearing panel’s decision.  Ms. Reguli now appeals to the Tennessee Supreme Court, presenting nine issues for review.    

Media members planning to attend oral arguments should review Supreme Court Rule 30 and file any required requests to:

Samantha Fisher
Communications Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Samantha.fisher@tncourts.gov

###