This appeal concerns the court’s summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s age discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims against the State of Tennessee, Department of Correction. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal arises from the termination of a father’s parental rights to his three children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that two grounds for termination were proven and that termination is in the best interest of the children. The father appeals. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.

This is the second appeal in this post-divorce action involving the interpretation of the parties’ marital dissolution agreement and allegations of contempt for failure to comply with the same. We remanded the case to the trial court for submission of additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. The husband appeals the trial court’s opinion on remand. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal involves a slip and fall premises liability case filed by an invitee against a business proprietor. The trial court granted summary judgment to the business proprietor because invitee’s evidence did not show that the condition in the business proprietor’s store was inherently dangerous and because the court found the condition to be open and obvious. For the following reasons, we agree with the trial court that the condition at issue was not inherently dangerous and summary judgement should be granted for Defendant.

A state inmate filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of the prison disciplinary board’s decision to deny parole. The board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court granted the board’s motion to dismiss because the petition was not filed within the sixty-day period prescribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102 (2017). We affirm.

In this divorce action, the issue is whether the trial court correctly credited the number of parenting days awarded to each parent for purposes of calculating child support under the terms of the permanent parenting plan (PPP). Scott Gates (father) argues on appeal that the trial court miscalculated his residential time by undercounting the number of days awarded him in the PPP. We hold that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in the PPP that require us to vacate the trial court’s order and remand for clarification of the actual number of days awarded and recalculation of child support.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant social workers employed by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services interlocutorily appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiffs, a family consisting of two parents and five children, assert that Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting four of the children to warrantless in-school interrogations without reasonable suspicion of child abuse. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by requiring Plaintiffs to adhere to a “Prevention Plan,” which constrained the plaintiff-mother’s ability to be alone with her children for approximately two months without any question as to her parental fitness and without any procedural protections. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of whether J.P. Morgan Investment Management Company (“JPMIM”), as advisor of certain mutual funds, has breached its fiduciary duty under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (“ICA”) by charging excessive advisory fees.

The district court considered the relevant factors according to Gartenberg and Jones II and determined that they collectively favored JPMIM. We agree. Goodman and Campbell urge us to disregard the implications of certain facts. Instead of comparing the fees JPMIM charged to other mutual funds for its role as adviser, Goodman and Campbell ask us to compare the fees JPMIM charged to other funds for its different role as subadviser. They allege that because JPMIM charges the Funds more than the Subadvised Funds, the fees charged to the Funds are excessive. But this comparison serves only to show that JPMIM charges different fees for dissimilar services with dissimilar risks and responsibilities. Goodman and Campbell thus fail to point to a genuine dispute of material fact. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.

The Petitioner, Dontavious Hendrix, was convicted of second-degree murder and subsequently sentenced to twenty-five years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1). Following denial of his direct appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking post- conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective based on the following grounds: (1) implementing an inappropriate trial strategy by allowing Monderrius Miller to testify on behalf of the defense; (2) failing to properly advise the Petitioner of his right to testify on his own behalf; and (3) failing to interview potential witnesses. Following our review, we affirm.

This case involves the classification and division of marital property between ex-military spouses. In dividing the marital property, the trial court failed to address the factors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121 or make necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law as is required under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the trial court’s decision and remand with instructions to properly address the required statutory factors.