In this action initiated by the mother to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan for their minor child, the trial court limited the father’s co-parenting time to include no overnight visitation with the child after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the father had committed domestic abuse against two women whom he had previously dated. The trial court relied on Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406 to restrict the father’s parenting time based on its determination that the father’s acts of domestic violence and hostility toward women had a negative effect on his ability to effectively parent the minor child. The father appealed, but this Court dismissed that appeal because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment. See McDonald v. Coffel, No. E2021-00460-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 4958475 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021). On remand, the trial court addressed all pending matters and entered a final judgment, keeping in place the residential coparenting schedule limiting the father’s parenting time to exclude overnight visitation. The father has again appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him overnight co-parenting time and by relying on Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against his former attorneys and the attorneys’ law firm. The defendants moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and that the action was untimely. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, and, having determined that the plaintiff’s action is untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104(c)(1), we affirm.

While a prior lawsuit was still pending on appeal, the Plaintiff filed a nearly identical lawsuit. The trial court dismissed this second suit based on res judicata. Although the second suit was not barred by res judicata because the first suit was not final for res judicata purposes, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal on the basis of the prior suit pending doctrine.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Thomas O’Lear ran a company that ostensibly offered mobile x-ray services for residents at nursing homes. But O’Lear used the company to cheat Medicare and Medicaid programs out of almost $2 million. He relied on the identities of nursing-home residents to bill for fictitious x-rays. To conceal this fraud during an audit, he also forged the names of his staff and put duplicate x-rays of some patients in the files of others. A jury convicted him of healthcare fraud, making a false statement in connection with healthcare services, and aggravated identity theft. The district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment.

O’Lear raises several questions on appeal, including the following two: Did the district court violate his Sixth Amendment right to an “impartial jury” by excluding individuals who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 from the pool of potential jurors? And were the nursing-home residents “victims” of O’Lear’s fraud under a “vulnerable victims” sentencing enhancement even though Medicare and Medicaid suffered the monetary losses? Our respective answers: No and yes. Unlike members of a particular race or sex, the unvaccinated do not qualify as the type of “distinctive group” that can trigger Sixth Amendment concerns with excluding a “fair cross section of the community” from the jury pool. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 174, 184 (1986). And because O’Lear used the identities and health records of nursing-home residents without their permission, he “[took] advantage of” them in a way that made them “victims” of his fraud under the ordinary understanding of that term. United States v. Webster, 615 F. App’x 362, 364 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). O’Lear’s remaining arguments also lack merit. We thus affirm.

The Appellant, Kelvin Montgomery, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirtyseven years’ confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed plain error by failing to provide the jury instruction required under State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559, 580-81 (Tenn. 2012), in connection with his aggravated rape charge; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum within-range sentences and ordering that they be served consecutively. Upon our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Five easement holders filed suit against two other easement holders and the servient estate owners seeking a declaratory judgment regarding whether the easements could be used for commercial logging activities. The trial court concluded that commercial logging activities were not a permissible use of the easements and entered an order restraining and enjoining use of the easements for such activities. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 interlocutory appeal, we address whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant Town’s motion for summary judgment on Appellees’ negligence and joint-venture claims. We conclude that the public-duty doctrine shields the Town from liability, and the special-duty exception does not apply. Furthermore, Appellees’ “joint venture” claims are simply additional negligence claims seeking to hold Appellant Town liable for the alleged negligence of other defendants. Because the Tennessee Legislature has not waived governmental immunity under such circumstances, Appellant Town’s immunity was never removed as to the “joint venture” claims. As such, the trial court erred in denying Appellant Town’s motion for summary judgment as to Appellees’ negligence and “joint venture” claims.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on July 19, 2023.1 The Notice of Appeal was not filed with the Appellate Court Clerk until September 7, 2023, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Defendant, Lanoris Cordell Carter, appeals his Lake County Circuit Court conviction for tampering with evidence. He argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Defendant asserts that throwing items out of a car window during an attempted traffic stop such that law enforcement could not recover the items is “mere abandonment” rather than concealment or destruction for purposes of the evidence tampering statute. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a pending petition for termination of parental rights and adoption. Two weeks after the maternal grandparents commenced their action to terminate the parental rights of the mother of their grandchild (the father being deceased), the paternal grandparents (“the Intervenors”) filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of filing a competing petition for adoption and termination of parental rights; they also sought to set aside an order granting permanent guardianship over the child to the maternal grandparents previously issued by the juvenile court in a separate proceeding. The Intervenors also filed a motion for leave to intervene for the purpose of filing a petition for grandparent visitation. The maternal grandparents opposed all relief sought by the Intervenors. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the juvenile court’s order of permanent guardianship for lack of jurisdiction, and it denied the motion to intervene for purposes of adoption on the ground that the Intervenors lacked standing because they did not meet the definition of prospective adoptive parents under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(44). However, the court granted their motion to intervene for the purpose of grandparent visitation. The Intervenors appeal the denial of the motion to intervene for purposes of adoption, and the maternal grandparents appeal the order granting the Intervenors leave to intervene for the purpose of grandparent visitation. We have determined that the Intervenors have standing to file a petition for adoption and termination of parental rights; thus, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on that issue. We affirm the trial court in all other respects.