This is a termination of parental rights case. The mother appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights, arguing that it erred in denying her motion to continue the trial and in considering hearsay evidence in its best interests analysis. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights.

Question 1:

Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-3-202, which authorizes the legislative body of a metropolitan government to levy a tax on the privilege of attending an event at a “municipal stadium” that is “constructed or improved after July 7, 1977, to contain seats for not less than thirty thousand (30,000) spectators,” require any or all the seats to be permanently affixed to the stadium?

Opinion 1:

No, there is no requirement that any or all the seats be permanently affixed to the stadium. A structure that has 30,000 seats or more—whether all or some of those seats are permanently affixed—meets the definition of a “municipal stadium” for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-3-202(a)(3), assuming it also satisfies all other applicable statutory requirements.

Question 2:

Could a metropolitan government levy the privilege tax if a municipal stadium has 25,000 permanent seats and 5,000 temporary seats?

Opinion 2:

Yes. Since there is no statutory requirement that all 30,000 seats be permanently affixed, a metropolitan government could levy the privilege tax if a municipal stadium has 25,000 permanent seats and 5,000 temporary seats.

The Petitioner, Michelle Shoemaker, is appealing the trial court’s summary dismissal of her habeas corpus petition. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the court finds that this is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Priscilla Ann Barnett, of one count of first degree premediated murder, one count of felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, and two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying her request for funds to retain a mental health expert; and (3) the trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

After counsel for the plaintiff partnership filed a claim for attorney fees in the counsel’s firm’s own name, limited partners of the partnership sought a right of intervention to oppose the firm’s claim. The trial court denied the limited partners’ efforts to intervene. We reverse the trial court’s conclusion that intervention was not appropriate, vacate the award giving relief to the firm, and remand the case for further proceedings with the limited partners’ participation as intervening parties.

For the week of December 12, 2022 - December 16, 2022

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Aaron Haynes argues that the district court misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) when it denied him “safety valve” relief from his mandatory-minimum sentence. We agree with the district court’s interpretation of the statute and affirm.

This case involves a decedent’s alleged wrongful transfer of real property, without fair consideration, out of a limited partnership in which he had served as general partner. Presently at issue is the trial court’s dismissal of claims brought against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate and the decedent’s wife. Although the partnership appeals the decision of the trial court and challenges, among other things, the trial court’s determination that a claim involving breach of fiduciary duty by the decedent is timebarred, we affirm the trial court’s judgment for the reasons stated herein.

A loan was secured by a deed of trust on the borrower’s real property. When the borrower repaid the loan in full, the bank paid a fee to record a deed of release. The bank then sought reimbursement of the fee from the borrower. The borrower filed a putative class action suit, alleging that Tennessee law prohibited the bank from seeking reimbursement of the recording fee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that federal regulations preempted the borrower’s claims. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee began working for the employer in March of 2021. Subsequently, he noticed increasing pain in his left shoulder. He did not report any specific work accident, but he eventually discussed his left shoulder pain with his primary care physician, which resulted in a referral for an MRI. The MRI revealed a tendon tear in his shoulder, and the employee was referred to an orthopedic physician. Eventually, when the employer learned the employee was having issues with his shoulder, it prepared a first report of injury and provided a panel of physicians. After one visit with the authorized physician, the employer denied the claim, asserting a notice defense as well as a lack of evidence of medical causation and other defenses. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that the employee’s failure to provide notice was reasonable and that the employer failed to show actual prejudice caused by the late notice. It further found that the employee had established he would likely prevail at trial on the issue of compensability and was entitled to a panel of orthopedists. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.