This appeal arises from a petition to probate a handwritten instrument as a codicil to the decedent’s last will and testament. The parties stipulated that the purported holographic will was in the handwriting of the decedent and that she was of sound mind and disposing memory at the time the purported holographic will was written. Additionally, the trial court found that the writing expressed a testamentary intent on the part of the decedent. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the petition, holding that the writing did not satisfy the signature requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 because, inter alia, the decedent’s name, Micki D. Thompson, was not subscribed to the writing. Instead, she merely identified herself within the writing in the third person as “Micki.” The court found the word “Micki” was not the decedent’s signature. The petitioner appeals, contending the handwritten instrument satisfies Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 because a testator’s name need not be “subscribed” as long as the name, or a portion thereof, is “inserted in some part of [the writing]” and the other requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 32-1-105 are satisfied. We agree because the decedent’s name was inserted in the writing, it was established that she was of sound mind and disposing memory, and the writing expresses a testamentary intent on the part of the decedent. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to admit the handwritten instrument to probate as a codicil to the decedent’s last will and testament.

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding filed by Wife in Tennessee. Husband objected to the trial court’s divorce jurisdiction and any custody determination concerning the parties’ minor children. Ultimately, the trial court found that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce, as well as any custody determinations. In connection with granting the parties a divorce, the trial court awarded Wife an equalizing distribution of the marital assets and attorney’s fees. The trial court also found Husband to be in contempt due to his alleged violation of the statutory restraining order set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-106(d) and his failure to return one of the parties’ minor children to Wife’s custody following summer visitation. Husband now appeals numerous aspects of the trial court’s findings. Upon our review of the record before us, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

In this healthcare liability action, the plaintiff sued several medical professionals and facilities. Following an amended complaint, which had removed multiple parties from the action, the remaining defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint that included allegations of comparative fault against a doctor that the plaintiff had removed as a party to the action in the amended complaint. The defendants did not file a certificate of good faith in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122, which is required when a defendant alleges comparative fault against a “non-party.” Following a motion by the plaintiff, the trial court entered an order striking the defendants’ allegations of comparative fault. The trial court further found that the defendants had not demonstrated good cause to support an extension of time to file a certificate of good faith. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The appellant challenges the chancery court’s order dismissing his petition for a declaratory judgment enjoining the State of Tennessee Attorney General, District Attorney General for the Tenth Judicial District, and an assistant district attorney general from enforcing his 2004 criminal convictions, which the appellant claimed had resulted in an illegal sentence. The chancery court dismissed Mr. Frazier’s petition because, inter alia, it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. We affirm the chancery court’s order of dismissal.

This appeal concerns post-divorce residential parenting schedule matters and findings of criminal contempt. Corey L. Choate (“Father”) and Amanda Kay Choate (Ralston) (“Mother”), parents of daughter BC and younger son RC, divorced in 2015. Some years later, Father filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”), seeking to modify the most recently entered permanent parenting plan and to have Mother found in criminal contempt. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order regarding the children’s custody and Mother’s criminal contempt. As relevant, Father was granted complete custody of RC. Mother was found guilty of 573 counts of criminal contempt in connection with her failure to follow the parenting plan. Mother appeals, arguing among other things that she lacked adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges because the Trial Court failed to read the charges aloud to her in open court upon her request. We find, inter alia, that Father’s detailed Second Amended Notice of Criminal Contempt, as well as the Trial Court’s written order entered before trial specifically finding that Mother was on notice of the charges, reflect that Mother received adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges against her. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety and remand for an award to Father of his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

The employee reported injuring her left hand and wrist while in the course and scope of her employment, and the employer initially provided a panel of physicians. After the employee failed to complete a post-accident drug screen, the employer denied the claim, asserting it was entitled to certain presumptions pursuant to the rules governing Tennessee’s Drug Free Workplace Program. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded the employer was not entitled to any presumptions but also found the employee failed to show she is likely to prevail at trial in proving medical causation and denied her request for medical benefits. Thereafter, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The employer subsequently provided a panel of orthopedic physicians to the employee, and, after obtaining a causation opinion from the authorized physician, the employer filed a second motion for summary judgment. In response to the motion, the employee submitted a medical record and letter from the authorized physician addressing causation. The trial court determined that the employee’s causation opinions were inadmissible at the summary judgment stage. The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the employee’s claim, concluding the employer successfully negated an essential element of the employee’s claim and established the employee’s proof was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. The employee has appealed. Upon careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

Week of October 18, 2021 - October 22, 2021

The Appellant, Calvin Scott, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Appellant also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to address an issue regarding his pretrial jail credits and that the trial court should have recused itself from his case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Damian McGlown, Defendant, was convicted of one count of aggravated rape for “unlawfully, knowingly, or recklessly sexually penetrat[ing] and caus[ing] bodily injury” to his adult niece, and he was sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant claims that the evidence failed to show that Defendant caused bodily injury to the victim and, therefore, was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Petitioner, Shaun Rondale Cross, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell twentysix grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-five years as a Range III, persistent offender. After an unsuccessful post-conviction petition, Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition along with an untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis based on a claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the motion to reopen post-conviction and denied the error coram nobis petition. On appeal, Petitioner claims the coram nobis court erred by denying him error coram nobis relief. Following review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.