JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. “Whether true or perceived to be true, a referee’s calls can ‘change the outcome of [a] game.’” Higgins v. Ky. Sports Radio, LLC, 951 F.3d 728, 735 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As is true for Kentucky basketball, the same is true for Kentucky horse racing. At issue here is a call made by racing stewards that changed the outcome in the most storied race of them all—the Kentucky Derby.

What should have been the fastest two minutes in sports turned into over a year of litigation. Neither Kentucky law nor the Fourteenth Amendment allows for judicial second-guessing of the stewards’ call. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in full.

In this consolidated appeal, Petitioner, Ronallen Hardy, appeals the summary dismissal of his petitions for post-conviction and error coram nobis relief after being convicted of first degree murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and resulting sentence of life without parole. See State v. Ronallen Hardy, M2008-00381-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2733821, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2009), no perm. app. filed. The trial court merged the murder convictions and this Court merged the conspiracy convictions on direct appeal. Id. After a review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellants, Husband and Wife, filed a complaint for damages, including Wife’s loss of consortium claim, with the Tennessee Claims Commission. The State filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss Wife’s loss of consortium claim because she did not file notice of her claim with the Division of Claims Administration within the applicable statute of limitations. The Claims Commission dismissed Wife’s claim for failure to comply with the notice requirement. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8- 402(b). Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals the trial’s courts award of $200,000.00 to Wife/Appellee under the parties’ prenuptial agreement. This award was based on the trial court’s finding that Husband’s net worth is at least $400,000.00. In their agreement, the parties waived alimony; nonetheless, Husband sought an award of alimony in the trial court. The trial court held that Husband did not meet his burden to show that he was a public charge so as to overcome his waiver of alimony. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, we affirm.

The dispositive issue in this personal injury action is whether the claims against the defendant trucking company for the tortious acts of its employee/truck driver are timebarred under Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals, 325 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. 2010) or saved by the commencement of a new action under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-105, Tennessee’s “savings statute.” After the plaintiffs commenced the new action, the company filed a motion to summarily dismiss the complaint, asserting the plaintiffs’ claims against the employee were procedurally barred before the new action was commenced. The trial court denied the motion because the first action was instituted before the plaintiffs’ right of action against the employee became extinguished by operation of law, and the second complaint was timely filed pursuant to the savings statute. For the same reason, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This case involves an oral contract for construction services at a residential home. The parties agreed for the contractor to make various improvements to the property, including painting; repairing cabinets; and replacing countertops. The parties dispute the agreedupon time of completion. Unbeknownst to the homeowner at the time of contracting, the contractor had several severe physical ailments. On multiple occasions, the homeowner expressed her displeasure with the contractor’s lack of progress. Eventually, the homeowner informed the contractor that a third party would complete the majority of the agreed-upon services. The homeowner initiated this case by filing suit against the contractor and his wife, alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The contractor and his wife filed a counter-claim, alleging breach of contract by the homeowner. After a bench trial, the trial court rescinded the contract, finding a mutual mistake regarding the length of the contract term, and dismissed the parties’ claims. All parties appealed. We reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal arose from a dispute between relatives concerning the ownership of improved real property. The property at issue was conveyed in 2000 via warranty deed to a married couple, William and Jewel Nunley, and their adult son, Anthony Gene Nunley, each as tenants in common. Following William Nunley’s death in 2007, Anthony Nunley purchased his mother’s interest in the property, executing a promissory note in the amount of $112,509.00 and a deed of trust secured by title to the property. In 2015, Jewel Nunley and Anthony Nunley executed a document stating that the remaining balance on the note was $37,509.00. Anthony Nunley (“Decedent”) died intestate in June 2016. Decedent’s surviving spouse, Tiny Nunley, filed a petition in the probate division of the Carter County Chancery Court (“probate court”) and was granted letters of administration to act as the personal representative (“Personal Representative”) of Decedent’s estate (“the Estate”). Jewel Nunley filed a claim against the Estate for the balance owed on the promissory note, which was later settled and released by agreement. Personal Representative filed an action in the probate court to reform the deed and quiet title to the subject real property. Two of Decedent’s three adult sisters objected and filed an action in the Carter County Chancery Court (“trial court”) to partition the property. The probate court transferred the reformation action to the trial court, treating Personal Representative’s petition to reform the deed and quiet title as a compulsory counterclaim to the partition action. The plaintiffs asserted that via the 2000 deed, the property was conveyed in part to William Nunley as a tenant in common with his one-third interest in the property then passing to his wife, Jewel Nunley, and their four children, including Decedent, through intestate succession. Personal Representative contended that the use of the phrase, “tenants in common,” in the 2000 deed had constituted a mutual mistake and that the parties had intended for William and Jewel Nunley to own one-half of the property as tenants by the entirety and for Decedent to own the other half as a tenant in common. Averring that her position was supported by evidence of an oral agreement between Decedent and his parents, Personal Representative maintained that upon transfer of Jewel Nunley’s interest to Decedent, he became the sole owner of the property. The plaintiffs moved for a judgment on the pleadings and filed a motion in limine, requesting that the trial court exclude any testimony or parol evidence related to alleged oral agreements among the parties to the 2000 deed. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine, finding that the deed was unambiguous and that admission of additional evidence of Decedent’s intent would violate the parol evidence rule, the Dead Man’s Statute, and the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the deed conveyed title to the property at issue to Decedent and each of his parents as tenants in common and that William Nunley’s one-third interest had transferred to his wife and children upon his death. Upon Personal Representative’s motion, the trial court certified the judgment as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. Personal Representative has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The defendant, Otis Taylor, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original three-year sentence in confinement. Upon review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendant violated the terms of his probation, and the imposed sentence is proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Question 1: If a city or county fails to fully fund its share of its joint economic and community development board’s budget as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-114(g), does the city or county become ineligible for all state grants or only the specific grant programs set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-110?

Opinion 1: A city or county that fails to fully fund its share of its joint economic and community development board’s budget is ineligible for all state grants. Question 2 In view of Tenn. Att’y Gen. Op. 17-37 (Aug. 31, 2017), which states that Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-111(c) has been impliedly repealed, has Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-114 been impliedly repealed, as well?

Question 2: In view of Tenn. Att’y Gen. Op. 17-37 (Aug. 31, 2017), which states that Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-111(c) has been impliedly repealed, has Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-58-114 been impliedly repealed, as well?

Opinion 2: No.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Challenges to warrants based on typographical errors or factual inaccuracies typically fall under this Circuit’s clerical error exception. We have consistently found that inadvertent drafting mistakes, for instance transposing a number in a street address or listing an incorrect nearby address, do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. That is because those errors create little risk of a mistaken search or a general warrant granting police an unconstitutionally broad authority to conduct searches.

Abdalla makes much of this mistake. He argues that a warrant cannot be valid if it contains a mismatch between the residence in the authorization section and the residence that the police searched. Along with this theory of invalid formation, Abdalla also asserts that a judge’s failure to notice an address outside his jurisdiction in a warrant’s authorization section demands the inference that the judge impermissibly rubberstamped the warrant. Yet the affidavit supporting the warrant listed the correct address and county at the top of the first page. And the warrant itself directed officers to the correct address by providing step-by-step directions along with a detailed description of Abdalla’s residence. So the warrant’s singular incorrect address posed almost no chance of a mistaken search. Despite the government’s irregular mistake, this clerical error case demands the usual result for technical mistakes that threaten no constitutional harm. We AFFIRM.