The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Crockett County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Crockett County court system.
Tennessee does not recognize a common law cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.
In Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A., No. E2021-00378-SC-R11-CV, — S.W.3d — (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2024), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that there is no tort for wrongful foreclosure in Tennessee. In the underlying case, plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to give required written notice when the foreclosure sale for plaintiff’s home was postponed. Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting several causes of action, but only appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the tort claim of wrongful foreclosure.
The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff that notice was required, and it reversed summary judgment on the wrongful foreclosure claim. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that no such claim exists in Tennessee.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2025, the Tennessee Supreme Court heard an oral argument about the ability of a plaintiff to discover surveillance films a defendant took. Here is how the Court described the background of the case:
Plaintiffs/Appellants Teresa and Randy Locke filed a health care liability action alleging that Defendants/Appellees negligently performed a surgery on Ms. Locke’s colon. While the case was pending, Defendants hired a private investigator to take surveillance videos of the Plaintiffs in an attempt to show that Ms. Locke was exaggerating her injuries. Thereafter, the Defendants expressed their intention to use some of the surveillance footage at trial. The Plaintiffs sought to obtain all the private investigator’s surveillance videos, including those that the Defendants did not intend to use at trial. The trial court rejected the Plaintiffs’ request under the work-product doctrine, requiring the Defendants to produce only the videos they intend to use at trial. The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in shielding the surveillance videos from discovery and affirmed the trial court’s decision to limit production to the videos that the Defendants intended to use at trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether a litigant has a “substantial need” under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(3) to obtain surveillance footage collected in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial when the party who conducted the surveillance designates some, but not all, of the surveillance footage for use at trial.
The oral argument is being conducted at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, as part of the Court’s SCALES program. It begins at 9:00 a.m. and will be live-streamed on the Court’s YouTube channel.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Cannon County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Cannon County court system.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Sequatchie County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Sequatchie County court system.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Bledsoe County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Bledsoe County court system.
Where the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against her uninsured motorist insurance carrier without stating any reason for the dismissal, the dismissal was vacated.
In Saulsberry v. Shannon, No. W2023-00532-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2024) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff filed suit against several defendants in connection with a car accident: the Shannons, three John Does, and the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier. Service was never issued for the John Does, and service on the Shannons was returned as “service incomplete.” No additional service was issued for the Shannons.
Plaintiff eventually moved to have her case consolidated with one the Shannons had filed against her. Consolidation was granted. Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for the Shannons corresponded about the complaint initially filed by plaintiff, but no additional summons was issued.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Benton County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Benton County court system.
Where plaintiff brought a tort action against defendant based on defective products made pursuant to a contract between the parties, dismissal based on the economic loss doctrine was affirmed.
In Vidafuel, Inc. v. Kerry, Inc., No. M2024-00041-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2024), the plaintiff developed and distributed wellness protein drinks. The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to manufacture these drinks, and problems began early in the relationship. Samples provided were not adequate, shipments that went out received customer complaints and had to be pulled, and the defendant failed to ever create a product that met the plaintiff’s quality requirements.
Plaintiff filed this suit asserting claims for negligent or intentional misrepresentation, deceit/fraudulent inducement, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiff argued that the claims were not based on the contract but were instead based on the defendant’s representations about its ability to manufacture the product. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s tort claims and that the TCPA claim was time-barred. The trial court agreed, dismissing the claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The following graphs demonstrate the resolution of personal injury, wrongful death, and other tort cases in Wayne County, Tennessee during the last six fiscal years ending June 30, 2023.
BirdDog Law shares this information for every county in Tennessee. Click on BirdDog’s County Pages, go to the county of choice, and click on Court Statistics.
Click on the link for more information on the Wayne County court system.
