This appeal involves a claim of intentional or, alternatively, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Christian Andreacchio, son of Todd and Rae Andreacchio (“Plaintiffs”), died in Meridian, Mississippi. The Meridian Police Department ruled Christian Andreacchio’s death a suicide. Plaintiffs contend that, contrary to the official conclusion, their son was murdered. Joseph (aka Joel) Hamilton (“Defendant”) created a Facebook page to express his own opinions on the matter. Defendant has argued publicly in favor of the Meridian Police Department’s conclusion. Plaintiffs sued Defendant and John Does 1-100 in the Circuit Court for Dickson County (“the Trial Court”) for distributing Christian Andreacchio’s autopsy photographs online. The photographs were public records released by the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant exceeded the bounds of constitutionally protected speech by distributing their son’s autopsy photographs online. The undisputed material facts show that the information Defendant is alleged to have shared is truthful information, public records, concerning a matter of public significance. We hold, as a matter of law, that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims. We affirm.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054, 1059 (6th Cir. 2014), we held that robbery as defined under Tennessee law is a “violent felony” as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA” or “the Act”). 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Here, based in part on that holding, the district court sentenced Randy Belcher to a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Act. Belcher now argues that two somewhat recent Supreme Court decisions—Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015), and Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021)—undermine our holding in Mitchell. We disagree and affirm the district court.

Petitioner, Michael Lewis Freeman, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to testify at trial in support of his claim of self-defense. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

For a 2005 shooting, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Thomas Edward Clardy, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder, and three counts of reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed a life sentence. On December 8, 2020, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit showing that he did not participate in the crime. The Petitioner acknowledged that he did not file the petition within the applicable statute of limitations but said he was entitled to an equitable tolling. The State agreed, and it asked the trial court for an equitable tolling and to hear the case on its merits. The coram nobis court, noting that it was not bound by the State’s concession, dismissed the petition as untimely. After review, we conclude that the coram nobis court erred and that the Petitioner is entitled to an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. As such, we reverse and remand to the coram nobis court for a hearing on the Petitioner’s error coram nobis claims.

Defendant, Kadrean J. Brewster, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell more than 0.5 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to eight-years split between one year in confinement and the remainder of the sentence on probation. Following revocation hearings, Defendant’s probation was revoked and Defendant was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the sentence in confinement. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court reformed an agreement between an employer and employee regarding the employee’s right to a profit share upon termination of his employment. We affirm the trial court.

This case pertains to the purchase of real property in a residential subdivision. The dispute arises from the fact that, at the time of sale, the lot was incorrectly listed as not being in a flood plain. Upon learning of the flood plain issue, the seller filled and graded the lot and abutting property, after which the regulatory authorities removed the lot from the flood plain zone. Despite the fact the lot was removed from the flood plain, the buyers commenced this action against the seller and its engineering firm, asserting claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Following discovery, the defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment, and the motions were set for hearing on the same day. When the buyers did not file a response in opposition to either of the motions and did not appear at the summary judgment hearing, the seller voluntarily continued the hearing on its motion. The engineering defendants, however, proceeded with the hearing, and the trial court granted summary judgment in their favor. The buyers, claiming they did not receive proper notice of the hearing, filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion to set aside the order granting summary judgment to the engineering defendants. Following a hearing on the remaining motions, the trial court denied the buyers’ Rule 59 motion on the finding the buyers had constructive notice of the hearing. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the seller on the claims of breach of contract and the TCPA. The trial court determined that the contract permitted the defendants to “grade” the land and rectify the flood plain issue even after closing. As such, the trial court found that the buyers did not have a claim for breach of contract. As to the claim that the seller violated the TCPA, the trial court explained that the TCPA requires some degree of fault, which was not present. Having determined that the buyers had constructive notice of the hearing on the engineering defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the buyers’ Rule 59.04 motion. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the seller concerning the claims for breach of contract and TCPA. Thus, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

This dispute involves a lender bank’s deed of trust for a leasehold interest related to real property on Lookout Mountain, Tennessee. After the trial court found, inter alia, that the deed of trust was no longer in effect and the bank’s interest in it ceased when the lease terminated, the lender appealed. The contractual issues before us are between the lender bank and the borrower’s landlord. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

This appeal requires us to consider the defense of res judicata in the context of two separate lawsuits filed by parties who were in a car accident. Following the car accident, the first lawsuit was filed and settled by agreement of the parties. An agreed judgment was entered dismissing the first lawsuit. Subsequently, the defendant from the initial lawsuit and her husband filed suit against the former plaintiff, alleging various causes of action sounding in tort. The trial court dismissed the second case, finding that all of the claims were barred by res judicata. The defendant in the initial suit and her husband—the plaintiffs in the second suit—appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit. We find that the tort claims alleged in the second suit were not compulsory counterclaims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13.01, and were not claims that would nullify the initial action or impair rights established in the initial action; therefore, we hold that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar those claims. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the case is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

For the week of July 4, 2022 - July 8, 2022