In this grandparent visitation case, the trial court awarded grandparents visitation with the child at issue, finding that there was “some deprivation” of visitation by the child’s mother. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the child’s mother opposed visitation, as that phrase is defined in Huls v. Alford, No. M2008-00408-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4682219 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2008).

We granted the State of Tennessee permission to appeal from the Court of Appeals’ decision on interlocutory appeal in which the intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order compelling discovery in this declaratory judgment action. The Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the lethal injection protocol in place for the execution of convicted criminal defendants sentenced to death is unconstitutional. In conjunction with pursuing their claim, the Plaintiffs sought to discover the identity of persons involved in facilitating and carrying out executions.

The defendant, James Stubblefield, III, appeals the sentencing decision of the trial court following the revocation of his community corrections sentence. The defendant pled guilty to aggravated burglary, forgery, and driving on a revoked license. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective four-year community corrections sentence as a Range I, standard offender. A violation warrant issued alleging that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his community corrections agreement.

The Petitioner, Gregory Glen Phillips, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 guilty plea to felony reckless endangerment and his two-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1998, Thomas Lee Carey, Jr. (“the Defendant”) was indicted in connection with the 1996 death of Michael Dickerson. The State entered a nolle prosequi as to the charges in 1999. In 2010, the Defendant was re-indicted for the same incident. After a trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping.

This appeal stems from the trial court’s finding that an implied partnership existed between Plaintiff and one of the Defendants with respect to a cattle-raising venture. Despite finding that the parties had already entered into a complete settlement regarding the partnership checking account and remaining partnership cattle, the trial court found that certain partnership assets had not been settled.

This is a case alleging negligence by the defendants which resulted in injury to a patient, Dennis Smith. Following hernia surgery, Mr. Smith was fitted for a wound vacuum because an infection had developed at the surgical site. A sponge was placed to absorb the infection. The defendants removed the wound vacuum when the infection dissipated, but they failed to remove the sponge, which later caused the wound to burst. Mr. Smith filed suit, and the defendants asserted that dismissal was appropriate because Mr.

Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if multiple parties or multiple claims are involved in an action, any order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not final or appealable. Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over final orders. See Bayberry Assoc. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990).

This appeal challenges the civil forfeiture of the appellant’s house after he was convicted of possessing child pornography on his home computer. We hold that, in forfeiture proceedings, the seizing authority is required to present affirmative proof that it complied with both the procedural and the substantive provisions of the applicable forfeiture statutes. In accord with prior decisions of this Court, we also hold that both the procedural and the substantive provisions of the forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed.