Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Recuse, Motion to
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Adams v. Dunavant, No. W2023-00304-SC-T10B-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. July 21, 2023).
De novo review applies to our resolution of this Rule 10B appeal. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.07 (“The Supreme Court shall decide the appeal . . . upon a de novo standard of review.”). “The provisions of [Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure] 11 . . . do not apply to such appeals.” Id.
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Woodward v. Woodward, No. M2023-01298-COA-T10B-CV, p. 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023).
Under Supreme Court Rule 10B, this court must review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review. TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B, § 2.01; Adkins v. Adkins, No. M2021-00384-COA-T10B-CV, 2021 WL 2882491, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 9, 2021).
Burkhart v. Burkhart, No. M2023-01390-COA-T10B-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023).
Appeals from orders denying a motion to recuse are governed by Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. The standard of review of a Rule 10B appeal is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. If we determine, after reviewing the petition and its supporting documents, that no answer to the petition is required, we may “act summarily on the appeal.” Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.05. Similarly, we may, in our discretion, decide the appeal without oral argument. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.06.
Lowe v. Lowe, No. E2023-01061-COA-T10B-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2023).
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01. “The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proof, and ‘any alleged bias must arise from extrajudicial sources and not from events or observations during litigation of a case.’”Neamtu v. Neamtu, No. M2019-00409-COA-T10B-CV, 2019 WL 2849432, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2019), no appl. perm appeal filed, (quoting Williams by & through Rezba v. HealthSouth Rehab. Hosp. N., No. W2015-00639-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 2258172, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2015), no appl. perm. appeal filed).
Wiesmueller v. Oliver, No. M2023-00651-COA-T10B-CV, p. 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2023).
Our standard of review in a Rule 10B appeal is de novo. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. “De novo” is defined as “anew, afresh, a second time.” Simms Elec., Inc. v. Roberson Assocs., Inc., No. 01-A-01-9011-CV-00407, 1991 WL 44279, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 1991) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, 392 (5th ed. 1979)).
Adams v. Dunavant, No. W2023-00304-COA-T10B-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 25, 2023).
Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee governs the procedure for “determin[ing] whether a judge should preside over a case.” TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B. In a Rule 10B accelerated interlocutory appeal, our review is limited to the trial court’s denial of the motion for disqualification or recusal. Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). We apply a de novo standard of review. TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B § 2.01.
Ferkin v. Bell, No. W2023-00481-COA-T10B-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 18, 2023).
On appeal, the denial of a motion to disqualify is reviewed de novo.4 TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B § 2.01.
Mani Associates v. Appalachian Underwriters Inc., No. E2023-00382-COA-T10B-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 5, 2023).
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires appellate courts to review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proof, and “any alleged bias must arise from extrajudicial sources and not from events or observations during litigation of a case.” Williams by & through Rezba, 2015 WL 2258172, at *5 (quoting McKenzie v. McKenzie, No. M2014-00010-COA- T10B-CV, 2014 WL 575908, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2014)).
McCurry v. McCurry, No. E2023-00297-COA-T10B-CV, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2023).
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01.
First Covenant Trust v. Willis, No. E2023-00230-COA-T10B-CV, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023).
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01.
Simonetti v. McCormick, No. M2022-01669-COA-T10B-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2023).
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.07, provides that this Court shall decide an appeal of a recusal matter under this section “on an expedited basis upon a de novo standard of review.”
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of Mary Ann Tapp/In re Mary Ann Tapp Living Trust Dated August 10, 2015, No. W2021-00718-COA-R3-CV, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2023).
“Upon the filing of the motion for recusal, pursuant to the clear and mandatory language of Section 1.02 of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, the trial court should have ‘ma[d]e no further orders and take[n] no further action on the case’ until the recusal issue was addressed.” Rodgers, 2015 WL 636740, at *4 (quoting Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 1.02). In addition, “‘Section 1.03 of Rule 10B requires every judge who denies a motion for recusal to ‘state in writing the grounds upon which he or she denies the motion.’” Elseroad v. Cook, 553 S.W.3d 460, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 1.03).
Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV, p. 36 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires appellate courts to review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard with no presumption of correctness. TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B, § 2.01.
Denney v. Rather, No. M2022-01743-COA-T10B-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2023).
This court conducts a de novo review of the ruling on the motion to recuse. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01; Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 n.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that the Rule has altered the standard of review of recusal motions).
Haddix D/B/A 385 Ventures v. Stinson, No. W2022-01813-COA-T10B-CV, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2023).
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires appellate courts to review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proof, and “any alleged bias must arise from extrajudicial sources and not from events or observations during litigation of a case.” Williams by & through Rezba, 2015 WL 2258172, at *5 (quoting McKenzie v. McKenzie, No. M2014-00010-COA- T10B-CV, 2014 WL 575908, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2014)).
Austermiller v. Austermiller, No. M2022-01611-COA-T10B-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2022).
When reviewing an appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we limit our review to whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for recusal. Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “[W]e review the denial of a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.06).
Green v. Green, No. E2022-01518-COA-T10B-CV, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).
With regard to Mother’s issues, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. “The party seeking recusal bears the burden of proof, and ‘any alleged bias must arise from extrajudicial sources and not from events or observations during litigation of a case.’” Neamtu v. Neamtu, No. M2019-00409-COA-T10B-CV, 2019 WL 2849432, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 2019) (quoting Williams by & through Rezba v. HealthSouth Rehab. Hosp. N., No. W2015-00639-COA-T10B-CV, 2015 WL 2258172, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2015)).
Halliburton v. Ballin, No. W2022-01208-COA-T10B-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2022).
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01. The only issue we may consider in a Rule 10B appeal is whether the trial judge should have granted the motion for recusal. Elseroad v. Cook, 553 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018); Boren v. Hill Boren, PC, 557 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). We do not review the merits or correctness of the trial court’s other rulings. Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Robinson v. Hicks, No. M2022-00960-COA-T10B-CV, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2022).
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for disqualification or recusal under a de novo standard of review. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B § 2.01. The only issue we may consider in a Rule 10B appeal is whether the trial judge should have granted the motion for recusal. Elseroad v. Cook, 553 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018); Boren v. Hill Boren, PC, 557S.W.3d542,546(Tenn.Ct.App.2017). Wedonotreviewthemeritsorcorrectness of the trial court’s other rulings. Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Slotkik v. Slotnick, No. M2022-00645-COA-T10B-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2022).
On appeal, the denial of a motion to recuse is reviewed de novo. TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B § 2.01.
Judzewitsch v. Judzewitsch, No. E2022-00475-COA-T10B-CV, p. 1-2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2022).
Our standard of review in a Rule 10B appeal is de novo. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01. “De novo” is defined as “anew, afresh, a second time.” Simms Elec., Inc. v. Roberson Assocs., Inc., No. 01-A-01-9011-CV-00407, 1991 WL 44279, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 1991) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, 392 (5th ed. 1979)).
Clay County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. E2022-00349-COA-T10B-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2022).
On appeal, we review the trial court’s action in ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01.
Tarver v. Tarver, No. W2022-00343-COA-T10B-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2022).
We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for recusal under a de novo standard of review with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01.
Killian v. Moore, No. M2020-01283-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2022).
We engage in a de novo review of the court’s decision on a motion to recuse. TENN. SUP. CT. R. 10B § 2.01.
