This case arises from an investigatory order issued by the Juvenile Court for Rutherford County allowing DCS to investigate abuse allegations regarding a minor child pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. section 37-1-406. The order also prohibited the mother of the child from interfering with the investigation. The mother appeals. Because the issues raised by mother are moot, we dismiss the appeal.

An employee sustained severe injuries when she was run over by a public transit bus on her way to work. The employer denied the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, and she filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the employee was within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred. The Claims Commission answered the question in the negative and determined that the case was subject to the “coming and going” rule. Therefore, the Claims Commission granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Upon our review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the decision of the Claims Commission.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Rebecca Foster suffered peer-on-peer sexual harassment while enrolled in the University of Michigan’s Executive MBA program. At issue in this Title IX case is whether the University was “deliberately indifferent” to her plight. Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 647 (1999). It was not. At each stage, the University ratcheted up protections for her: from a no-contact order after the first complaint to a requirement that the harasser stay in a separate hotel for the program’s last three-day session to a removal from the third day of the session to an order that he not attend graduation. That does not constitute deliberate indifference as a matter of law, and accordingly we affirm the district court’s summary judgment decision in favor of the University.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, David Oeser, as charged of first degree premediated murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1), (a)(2), 39-13-403, 39-14-403, 39-16-503. The trial court imposed life sentences for the Defendant’s first degree murder convictions before merging them. It then sentenced the Defendant to twenty years at one hundred percent for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, five years at thirty percent for the aggravated burglary conviction, and five years at thirty percent for the tampering with evidence conviction, with these sentences served concurrently with one another but consecutively to the life sentence, for an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for first degree premediated murder; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the sentences for the especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence convictions served consecutively to his life sentence. After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable law, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 1 and 3 as specified in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a mother and father to their child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support two grounds for termination: persistence of conditions and severe abuse. The trial court also found that termination was in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to the minor child on the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Similarly, Appellant Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1); (2) abandonment by failure to support, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1); and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14). Appellants also appeal the trial court’s finding that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Because the record does not support grounds for termination of Appellants’ parental rights, we reverse the trial court’s order concerning same. Accordingly, the issue of whether termination is in the Child’s best interest is pretermitted.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by the Defendant. In its order denying the motion to compel, the trial court failed to make any factual findings. Further, there is no indication that any proof was considered by the trial court. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

In a direct appeal from the Environmental Court for Davidson County, Tennessee (“general sessions court”),1 the Davidson County Circuit Court (“trial court”) granted the plaintiff agency’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court’s determination that the defendant, Farokh Fani, had untimely filed his motion for Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60 relief in the general sessions court, rendering his appeal to the trial court untimely. Mr. Fani has appealed. We conclude that the trial court erred by determining that Mr. Fani’s Rule 60 motion and his appeal were untimely. Having further determined that a factual dispute exists concerning whether the plaintiff agency properly served process on Mr. Fani, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including the development of a record concerning service of process.

The Petitioner, Jamey Crowell, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2017 Chester County convictions for aggravated kidnapping, facilitation of aggravated assault, and three drug-related convictions, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

We granted this appeal to settle a split of authority in the Court of Appeals concerning the proper interpretation of a statute that requires a person seeking termination of parental rights to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a “parent or guardian has failed to manifest, by act or omission, an ability and willingness to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g)(14) (Supp. 2016); id. (2017 & Supp. 2020). In some decisions, the Court of Appeals has interpreted this language as requiring clear and convincing proof that a parent was both unable and unwilling to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of a child. See, e.g., In re Ayden S., No. M2017-01185-COA-R3- PT, 2018 WL 2447044, *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2018). In other decisions, the Court of Appeals has construed this statute as requiring clear and convincing proof that a parent was either unable or unwilling to personally assume legal and physical custody or financial responsibility of a child. See, e.g., In re Amynn K., No. E2017-01866-COA- R3-PT, 2018 WL 3058280, *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018). We hold that the statute is ambiguous and that the latter interpretation—the In re Amynn K. interpretation—best effectuates legislative intent. Therefore, we overrule In re Ayden S. and all other Court of Appeals’ decisions inconsistent with our holding herein. Additionally, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals herein, which applied the In re Ayden S. interpretation, and reinstate the judgment of the trial court terminating mother’s parental rights based solely on Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(14). In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment remains intact and is reinstated.