In this appeal, we construe a will. The trial court determined that the will disinherited one of the testator’s two daughters by necessary implication when the testator identified only one daughter as his child in the “Family” clause and did not indicate a specific intent to include the other daughter in the residue clause that disposed of his estate. Upon our de novo review, we hold that inclusive language in the family clause does not operate to disinherit one daughter when the residue clause defined “children” differently, such that both of the testator’s daughters are beneficiaries under the will. We therefore reverse the judgment of the chancery court and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Father appeals from a trial court’s termination of his parental rights. Due to the lack of a sufficiently complete record on appeal, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the matter for a new trial.

In this accelerated interlocutory appeal, a mother seeks review of the denial of her motion to recuse the trial judge. She contends that statements the trial judge made at a hearing present a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality or could only stem from an extrajudicial source. We conclude that they do not. So we affirm.

In this appeal of an order granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the employee asserts that the trial court erred in accepting the authorized physician’s opinion regarding maximum medical improvement and permanent partial impairment. The employer had filed the motion for summary judgment asserting there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute with respect to the degree of the employee’s permanent disability arising from the work injury, and the trial court agreed. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and certify the trial court’s order as final.

This is an appeal of a trial court’s judgment affirming a decision of a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility. The hearing panel found that an attorney had violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and imposed a thirty-day suspension from the practice of law with conditions on reinstatement. After careful review, we affirm the decision of the hearing panel and the judgment of the trial court.

In 2019, the Appellee, Inman D. Turner, was charged in the Rutherford County Circuit Court with two counts of criminal sexual conduct and four counts of aggravated rape, Class X felonies, for offenses that allegedly occurred from 1978 to 1982. The Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial delay. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion, and the State appeals. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Jennifer Sadie Thompson, filed a pro se motion for correction of sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1, which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion, arguing that the Tennessee Department of Correction failed to apply sentencing credits to which she was entitled. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a post-divorce petition on the grounds of res judicata. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the final order as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.

Week of May 31, 2022 - June 3, 2022

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Universal Life Church Monastery (“ULC”) permits anyone who feels so called to become ordained as a minister—over the Internet, free of charge, and in a matter of minutes. Should the newly minted minister wish to solemnize a marriage in Tennessee, however, she will encounter a problem. Tennessee law permits only those “regular” ministers—ministers whose ordination occurred “by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act”—“to solemnize the rite of matrimony.” Tenn. Code Ann. (“TCA”) § 36-3-301(a)(1)–(2). And since 2019, the law has explicitly clarified that “[p]ersons receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite.” Id. § 36-3-301(a)(2).

Asserting that those restrictions violate the federal and Tennessee constitutions, ULC and various of its members sued several Tennessee officials to pursue an injunction and declaratory judgment. Yet the officials contend that they have sovereign immunity from suit and that, in any event, plaintiffs lack standing to sue. The district court rejected those contentions by and large, entering a preliminary injunction against several defendants. We are now asked to take up the same questions and reverse the district court. And, indeed, we hold that many of plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. But we also hold that as to the remaining claims presenting a live case or controversy, the district court properly denied sovereign immunity. We will thus remand a narrow portion of plaintiffs’ suit for further proceedings below.