In this compensation appeal, the employer alleges the trial court erred both in denying its post-trial motion to re-open the proof as well as in finding the claim compensable despite its notice defense. The employee asserted he sustained work-related hearing loss after working forty-seven years for the employer around loud machinery. The employer denied the claim on the basis that the employee failed to give proper notice of his injury, asserting the employee knew or should have known he suffered work-related hearing loss years before his last day of employment with the employer. The employee asserted that he was aware he had hearing loss but believed it to be age related until he met with his attorney in August 2020. Following a compensation hearing but before the trial court issued its compensation order, the employer filed a motion seeking permission to re-open the proof and file a post-hearing brief based on new information it learned during the hearing that contradicted the employee’s written discovery responses. The trial court denied the employer’s motion and determined the employee provided timely notice of his hearing loss injury once he discovered his hearing loss was work-related. The employer has appealed both orders. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we reverse the order denying Employer’s post-trial motion. We affirm the trial court’s compensation order with respect to the issue of notice, but, due to the reversal of the order addressing the post-trial motion, we vacate the award of benefits pending further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the week of December 26, 2022 - December 30, 2022

In this case involving termination of the father’s parental rights to his children, the trial court found that several statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father has appealed. Having determined that clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial court’s finding of the statutory abandonment ground of failure to support, we reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to this ground. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the father’s parental rights.

This is an appeal from a final order of absolute divorce. The trial court granted the divorce based on a finding that both parties committed inappropriate marital conduct. The wife appeals. We dismiss the appeal.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to award equal parenting time after making no findings regarding her allegations of abuse by Father. Because the trial court stated that there was no evidence of abuse in the record despite the plethora of relevant testimony by both parties, we are unable to ascertain the trial court’s reasoning. We therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for further findings.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Sisters for Life, several individuals, and another pro-life organization wish to offer leaflets and compassionate, if sometimes unwelcome, speech to women entering abortion clinics in Louisville, Kentucky. But Louisville-Jefferson County limited their speaking and pamphleteering in buffer zones near the entrance of each clinic. Because these limits likely violate the First Amendment, see McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 497 (2014), we preliminarily enjoin them.

This appeal involves an action brought by the State of Tennessee for alleged violations of Tennessee’s statutes regarding the unauthorized practice of law and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The State of Tennessee claimed that the defendants improperly solicited clients who were in the process of making funeral arrangements for their recently deceased children. Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict unanimously finding in favor of the State of Tennessee and assessing civil penalties against the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment against the defendants. The defendants appeal. We affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case involves a petition for contempt filed against the defendant arising out of a dispute over an easement. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant violated the court’s prior order implementing a permanent injunction with regard to the easement. The trial court dismissed the petition finding that the plaintiff had not proven the requisite elements of contempt. We affirm.

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Kyndra Abernathy (“Petitioner”) petitioned the trial court for an order of protection against Icker Derek Barile (“Respondent”), alleging that he sexually assaulted her. After a hearing at which each party proceeded pro se, the trial court issued a one-year protective order, finding that Respondent engaged in sexual penetration without Petitioner’s consent and continued after she told him to stop. Respondent appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by considering irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and that its decision was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.