The Petitioner, Lavonte D. Simmons, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.

A DeKalb County jury convicted the Defendant, Gary Wayne Ponder, of aggravated arson. The trial court imposed a twenty-three-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue, and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Bryan Shawn Blevins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, which rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary. The State argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying the State’s motion to summarily dismiss the petition as time-barred. Based on our review, we conclude that the Petitioner failed to show that the one-year statute of limitations should be tolled on due process grounds. Thus, the Petitioner’s post-conviction claims are barred by the statute of limitations. We, therefore, reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

This appeal involves an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12- 119(c). The trial court dismissed two of the plaintiff’s three claims for relief pled in his amended complaint pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), upon its finding that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted on the two claims. The third claim also was included in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, as well as arguments for improper venue and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all of which were denied by the trial court. More than thirty days after a final judgment was entered, the defendant requested an award of attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. In his supporting affidavit, the defendant’s counsel included attorney’s fees as relevant to the entire motion to dismiss instead of distinguishing the time spent regarding the claims that were dismissed pursuant to Rule 12.02(6). The trial court awarded the defendant attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,000, which is the maximum amount of attorney’s fees a trial court can award under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c). The trial court denied the defendant’s request for discretionary costs as untimely. We affirm the trial court’s denial of discretionary costs, vacate the award of attorney’s fees, and remand for the Trial Court to reconsider the attorney’s fees award as consistent with this opinion and the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in Donovan v. Hastings, No. M2019-01396-SC-R11-CV, -- S.W.3d -- , 2022 WL 2301177 (Tenn. June 27, 2022).

This appeal involves a multitude of challenges brought to the orders of the trial court in a post-divorce dispute involving minor children. We vacate the trial court’s decision to sua sponte order a new parenting plan, as well as to enter a temporary and permanent injunction against Mother. We also reverse the trial court’s decision to award Father discretionary costs for expert fees regarding an issue on which he did not prevail. Otherwise, we affirm the rulings of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a last will and testament, which provided for the creation of a trust. The decedent’s wife is the current income beneficiary of the trust, with the decedent’s son being a remainder beneficiary. The son requested an accounting of the trust financials, to which the trustees of the trust responded that the son was not entitled to receive them. The trustees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment asking the trial court to instruct the parties whether the son was entitled to the information he requested. The son subsequently filed a counterclaim asking that the trustees be required to provide him with the information he requested and alleging breach of trust by the trustees. The Trial Court granted the trustees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings after finding that the son was a remainder beneficiary and not a current income beneficiary of the trust and, therefore, was not entitled to financial information regarding the trust. The Trial Court found that the language in the decedent’s last will and testament was intended to override the reporting requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-15-813(a) and limit the trustees’ statutory obligation of reporting to qualified beneficiaries. In doing so, the Trial Court determined that the trustees were not required to provide the son with reports or other financial information concerning the trust. The Trial Court denied the son’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a wrongful death health care liability action. At issue in this appeal are claims that were asserted against a hospital and an emergency room physician. During the course of litigation, the trial court permitted the defendants to amend their pleadings to assert a comparative fault defense but placed certain limitations on any new experts the plaintiff might retain to address the defense. The trial court also denied the plaintiff’s efforts to secure a new standard of care expert when one of his retained experts withdrew from the case and refused to testify. Ultimately, through a series of summary judgment orders, the claims against the hospital and emergency room physician were dismissed. Although the plaintiff generically challenges the trial court’s summary judgment dispositions on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff’s challenges are all waived except as they relate to the last summary judgment order that was entered as to the emergency room physician. That summary judgment order is reversed consistent with the discussion herein, namely in light of our conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiff to secure a substitute standard of care expert after his retained expert refused to testify due to no fault of counsel or his client. Further, although we find no error in the trial court’s decision to allow the defendants to amend their pleadings to assert comparative fault, we are of the opinion that the court abused its discretion with respect to the limitations it placed on any potential expert retained by the plaintiff to address the issues raised in the later amendment alleging comparative fault.

Police officer Joshua Mason saw Stevenson leave the parking lot of an apartment complex and drive toward the driveway. At the driveway opening, there is one sidewalk running perpendicularly to either side. The sidewalks do not connect across the driveway but instead run in opposite directions. The driveway continues a few more feet and perpendicularly connects to a street. Mason watched Stevenson drive onto the driveway opening—between the sidewalks—without stopping. Stevenson continued a few more feet and stopped at the end of the driveway. After a brief pause, he turned left onto the street.

Mason followed Stevenson and pulled him over for violating Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.431(A). That statute requires drivers to stop before driving onto a “sidewalk area extending across the . . . driveway[.]” Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.431(A). As he approached the passenger’s side of Stevenson’s car, Mason smelled raw marijuana, and Stevenson readily admitted there was marijuana in the car. Mason directed Stevenson to get out of the car and, right away, found marijuana in the driver-side door. Mason continued to search Stevenson’s car and discovered a gun in the glove compartment.

Stevenson was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an indicted person in possession of a firearm. Stevenson moved to suppress the evidence of the gun, but the district court denied the motion. So Stevenson entered a conditional plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. After arriving at Boone County Detention Center following his arrest, plaintiff Charles Stein was badly beaten by a fellow detainee, Jordan Webster. He brings this suit against Sergeant Gunkel and Deputy Sterling, two jail officers who were involved in determining the appropriate booking classification for Jordan Webster. Stein alleges that Gunkel and Sterling were deliberately indifferent to the excessive risk Webster posed to other detainees and thereby caused his injuries. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We AFFIRM.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. By all accounts, this case involves discovery abuses and violations that are (thankfully) unusual in their frequency and mendacity. That conduct by Defendants resulted in the ultimate sanction—default judgment for the Plaintiffs. That judgment, however, is not this appeal’s subject, the damages awarded by the district court are.

New London Tobacco Market, Inc. and Fivemile Energy, LLC, (“New London”) sued Kentucky Fuel Corporation and James C. Justice Companies, Inc. (“Kentucky Fuel”) for breach of contract and fraud. During this litigation, Kentucky Fuel committed a string of egregious discovery violations. As a result, the district court entered default judgment against it and awarded damages to New London on all counts. On appeal, Kentucky Fuel challenges these awards. For the reasons below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.