Nashville, Tenn. – On November 5, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for its November docket in Jackson, Tennessee. Oral arguments will be heard at the Tennessee Supreme Court building in Jackson and livestreamed to the TNCourts YouTube page (https://www.youtube.com/@TNCourts).
Beginning at 9:00 am CDT, the Court will hear the following three cases:
• Saint Claude Renel et al. v. Drexel Chemical Company – A group of agricultural workers living in the Dominican Republic (“the Plaintiffs”) sued Drexel Chemical Company (“the Defendant”), a Memphis based Tennessee corporation, in Shelby County Circuit Court, alleging they were injured by toxic herbicides the Defendant designed, manufactured, and labeled in Tennessee before being used in sugar cane fields abroad. They brought their claims under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (“the TPLA”). The Defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the TPLA does not apply extraterritorially—that is, it does not apply to conduct occurring outside Tennessee. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case under the United States Supreme Court’s two-step framework for evaluating whether a federal statute applies extraterritorially. Under that framework, established in RJR Nabisco v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016), courts first ask whether the statute clearly indicates an intent to apply extraterritorially to overcome the federal presumption against extraterritoriality. If there is no clear indication of extraterritoriality at step one, courts next ask whether the claims nonetheless involve a permissible domestic application of the statute. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed at step one, finding no clear legislative intent for the TPLA to apply outside Tennessee. Judge Steven Stafford dissented, agreeing that the TPLA is not expressly extraterritorial but concluding that the court should have proceeded to step two because the Plaintiffs alleged that the negligent conduct occurred in Tennessee. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to consider (1) what framework Tennessee courts should use to determine whether a statute applies extraterritorially, and (2) whether Tennessee law includes a presumption against extraterritorial application.
• Shanika Pack et al. v. Physicians Quality Care, PLLC et al. – In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court will decide whether a trial court correctly limited the recovery of medical expenses in a healthcare liability lawsuit involving the death of Melvin Pack. In August 2021, Mr. Pack’s daughter, Shanika Pack (“the Plaintiff”), filed a lawsuit alleging that several healthcare providers (“the Defendants”) negligently prescribed, dispensed, and monitored his medications, causing severe reactions that led to his death. The Plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of and recover approximately $3 million in undiscounted medical bills resulting from the Defendants’ alleged negligence. The Defendants argued that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29 26 119 (2012), part of the Health Care Liability Act, limits recovery to the amounts actually paid or owed by the patient or the patient’s insurer. The Plaintiff disagreed and relied on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Crotty v. Flora, 676 S.W.3d 589 (Tenn. 2023), which held that plaintiffs may present their full medical bills when they paid for their health insurance in whole or in part. Because Mr. Pack contributed to his employer provided insurance, the Plaintiff argued she could seek the full amount billed. The trial court sided with the Defendants and limited recovery but granted a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal because Tennessee courts had reached differing interpretations of the statute. The Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Crotty applies to cases pending at the time it was decided.
• State of Tennessee v. Gavin Allen Clark – This appeal concerns ambiguous jury verdicts and the trial court’s role as the “thirteenth juror.” Gavin Allen Clark (“the Defendant”) was charged with two counts of felony murder, one count of aggravated child abuse, and one count of aggravated child neglect. At trial, the jury was instructed to consider each charge in order and move to lesser included offenses only if it unanimously found the Defendant not guilty of the greater charge. On the verdict forms for counts one and two, the jury found the Defendant guilty of reckless homicide but also checked “not guilty” for a lesser included offense. On counts three and four, the jury found him guilty as charged, while simultaneously marking “not guilty” on all lesser included offenses. In open court, however, the foreperson stated that the jury unanimously found the Defendant guilty of reckless homicide on counts one and two and guilty as charged on counts three and four. The Defendant later sought a new trial, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the weight of the evidence supported the verdict. A divided panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions, finding that the verdicts were ambiguous because they appeared to both convict and acquit the Defendant. The majority also concluded that double jeopardy did not bar retrial on the convicted offenses and that the trial court failed to perform an independent review of the verdict as thirteenth juror. The third member of the panel agreed that the verdicts were ambiguous but dissented from the majority’s conclusions that the State could only retry the defendant on the convicted offenses and that the trial judge failed to satisfy the requirements for his role as the thirteenth juror. The State appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to consider: (1) whether the jury’s verdicts were ambiguous; (2) whether retrial should proceed on the original charges; and (3) whether any failure by the trial court to act as the thirteenth juror required automatic reversal.
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.