The pro se petitioner, Perry Singo, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Hickman County, arguing the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the petition. After our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

For offenses occurring in 2010, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Michael Kizer, of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of forty-five years of incarceration. This court affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. Michael Kizer, No. W2013-02559-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 5512863, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 3, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2015). In 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In it, he contended that there was newly discovered evidence about his mental capacity that was not considered by mental health professionals at the time of their evaluation. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the one-year statute of limitations had run and that the Petitioner had failed to establish that he was entitled to a hearing. The Petitioner filed this appeal. After review, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment.

This is an appeal of rulings by the trial court in a contentious divorce action. Following a bench trial, the trial court valued the parties’ marital assets and divided the marital estate equally. The court awarded the husband the marital home upon his payment to the wife of one-half the combined equity, equal parenting time, and designation as the primary residential parent. The court found that the wife was not entitled to alimony. The wife, inter alia, challenges the trial court’s division and valuation of the marital estate, in declining to award her attorney’s fees, in awarding the parties equal parenting time, and the designation of the husband as primary residential parent. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant debtor appeals the judgment of the trial court on the sole basis that the choice of law provision in the parties’ contract means that another state is the exclusive forum for this action. We affirm the decision of the trial court and award Appellee creditors damages for responding to a frivolous appeal.

Brett Rosasco (“Employee”) was injured when he was struck by a falling tree after he tried to use a portable restroom near his worksite. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims determined that Mr. Rosasco’s injury did not “arise primarily out of and in the course and scope of [his] employment” and granted summary judgment for West Knoxville Painters, LLC (“Employer”). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(14). Mr. Rosasco’s appeal has been referred to this Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. After reviewing the evidence, we affirm the judgment.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. In a lawsuit against federal officers, the first question a court should ask is whether a cause of action exists. The district court thought it did. We disagree and reverse.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Nude dancing is not allowed at strip clubs with an Ohio liquor license. So when WCI, Inc. let its employees at Cheeks Gentlemen’s Club perform fully nude in the presence of undercover agents, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission issued an order presenting WCI with a choice: pay a $25,000 fine or have its liquor license revoked. WCI appealed the order in the Ohio court system and lost. Displeased with that outcome, WCI filed a complaint in federal court alleging numerous constitutional violations and seeking money damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of several of WCI’s constitutional claims, so that only the claims alleging violations of the Due Process Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause remained. On remand, the district court dismissed those remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Robert Sloat sued his former employer, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company, asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Hewlett-Packard, holding that Sloat lacked evidence supporting a prima facie case for his claims. We respectfully disagree and reverse.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin made the case for term limits. He argued that “in free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade, but to promote them.” 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 120 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (cleaned up). The people of Michigan had the same idea. They enacted term limits for their state legislators. Yet some veteran legislators didn’t take their “promotion” well. They sued, claiming term limits violate their constitutional rights. But it’s not our place to second-guess how Michiganders choose to design their state legislature.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a high-speed police pursuit by Edmonson County, Kentucky, sheriffs that ended in a collision between the fleeing car and another vehicle. Two minor passengers in the fleeing vehicle, C.S. and M.S., were injured, and one of them, C.S., although unconscious in the backseat, was subsequently tased by defendant Deputy Sheriff Jordan Jones when C.S. did not respond to instructions from Jones. The two minors brought this suit against Edmonson County and several police officers for the injuries they sustained, asserting a variety of constitutional and state law claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims, but denied summary judgment on an excessive force claim against defendant Jones pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and on several state-law claims asserted against defendants Jones and Sheriff Shane Doyle. In this interlocutory appeal, Jones and Doyle argue that the district court erred in ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity on these remaining claims. Defendants also contend that summary judgment should have issued on the pendent state claims because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to those claims. On the facts as we must take them on this interlocutory appeal, the district court properly ruled that Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 and state-law battery claims. However, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under Kentucky law on the state-law negligence and gross negligence claims. Finally, on this interlocutory appeal we lack jurisdiction to address the defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.