The mother of two minor children appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights upon finding that the Department of Children’s Services established three grounds for termination: (1) abandonment prior to incarceration that exhibits wanton disregard for the welfare of the children; (2) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (3) failure to manifest an ability or willingness to assume custody, and that termination was in the best interest of the children. This appeal followed. We affirm.

Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on the grounds of severe abuse, abandonment by failure to visit and support, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume physical custody or financial responsibility for the child. We affirm the trial court’s rulings as to both grounds for termination and best interest.

An attorney who had been disbarred was assessed costs associated with his disbarment proceedings pursuant to pre-2014 Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 24.3. The attorney timely filed a petition seeking relief from costs, and a panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility conducted a hearing on the petition. The panel reduced the costs for 11.2 hours of disciplinary counsel time and otherwise denied the petition. The attorney has appealed to this Court, as permitted by pre-2014 Rule 9, section 24.3. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the record and each of the issues raised, we affirm the panel’s decision.

Week of August 9, 2021 - August 13, 2021

PER CURIAM. This is the third time we have seen this case. Plaintiffs are three Ohioans who, during the 2020 election, tried to get initiatives to decriminalize marijuana on local ballots. To do so, they had to comply with Ohio’s ballot-access laws. Those laws impose various requirements on an initiative’s proponents, including submitting a petition with a minimum number of ink signatures witnessed by the petition’s circulator.

Plaintiffs say the laws, as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, made it too difficult for them to get any of their initiatives on 2020 ballots. So they sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. But plaintiffs tied their requests for relief exclusively to the November 2020 election. That election has come and gone—and with it the prospect that plaintiffs can get any of the relief they asked for. This case is thus moot. We VACATE the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

The Defendant, Jeremy W. Alexander, appeals as of right from the Henderson County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his effective twenty-sevenyear sentence in the Department of Correction for his three guilty-pleaded convictions for sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his sentence and that an alternative to full incarceration should have been imposed to allow him to seek treatment for his methamphetamine addiction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that multiple grounds for terminating Mother’s parental rights existed and that termination was in the Children’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this legal malpractice action, the trial court determined that any duty owed by the defendant law firm to the plaintiff ceased when the law firm undisputedly terminated its representation of the plaintiff more than five months prior to expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff’s underlying claim. The court found that the plaintiff had ample time within which to hire new counsel before the statute of limitations would have run on his personal injury claim. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed, within that timeframe, to obtain new counsel or inquire about the status of his claim such that any damages he suffered were due to his own inaction. The court accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant law firm. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This case concerns a dispute over medical benefits sought by the employee pursuant to the terms of a court-approved settlement agreement. Two authorized physicians recommended the employee undergo left hip surgery. In response, the employer submitted the claim to its utilization review provider, and the reviewing physician recommended non-certification of the prescribed treatment. These recommendations were appealed to the Medical Director of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, who agreed with the non-certification recommendations. As a result, the employer denied the employee’s claim for additional medical treatment. Following a compensation hearing, the trial court concluded the employer did not rebut the presumption of medical necessity accorded the authorized physicians’ surgery recommendations and ordered the employer to authorize the prescribed medical treatment. However, the trial court declined to award the employee any attorney’s fees or expenses. The employer has appealed the court’s order for medical benefits, and the employee has appealed the court’s denial of attorney’s fees and expenses. We affirm in part and vacate in part the trial court’s order and remand the case.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Before making life’s big decisions, it is often wise to take time to reflect. The people of Tennessee believed that having an abortion was one of those decisions. So they passed a law requiring a waiting period of 48 hours. Although the Supreme Court upheld a similar 24-hour waiting period in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the district court said that Tennessee’s waiting period violates a woman’s right to have an abortion. We disagree and reverse.