A Cumberland County jury convicted Defendant, Gregory Ryan Webb, of one count of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail at seventy-five percent service. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to dismiss based on the State’s failure to preserve body camera footage from the crime scene; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (3) his sentence was excessive. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, David Lyndel Cochran, stands convicted of one count each of aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. He appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to offer expert testimony. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, John Butler, entered a guilty plea to three counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and was placed on judicial diversion with a probationary period of six years. The State subsequently alleged that the Appellant violated his probation, and, following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Appellant’s diversion and entered judgments of conviction imposing an effective sentence of three years to be served in confinement. In this appeal, the Appellant contends the trial court erred in revoking the Appellant’s diversion and in ordering confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Hawkins County Grand Jury charged the Defendant, Kim Owen Alley,1 by presentment with one count of theft of $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, one count of transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer, and one count of fraudulent acts or devices. A few months later, another presentment was issued charging the Defendant with two additional charges: one count of money laundering and one count of theft of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000.2 Prior to trial, the State entered a nolle prosequi for the theft count in the second presentment. Then, following the State’s proof at trial, the trial court dismissed all three charges from the first presentment because the evidence presented did not correspond to the dates alleged in the presentment. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of the remaining money laundering count, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years’ incarceration with a release eligibility of thirty percent. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his money laundering conviction; (2) the trial court erred in providing a jury instruction for theft of property as a part of the jury instruction for money laundering after all the theft charges had been dismissed; and (3) his ten-year sentence is excessive. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A taxpayer appealed a County Board of Equalization’s property valuation to the State Board of Equalization. The State Board reduced the valuation. The County then sought judicial review. After a new hearing in which the trial court heard testimony from competing appraisers, it affirmed the State Board’s valuation. It also determined that the County’s request to reclassify the property was untimely. We affirm.

In this breach of contract case, the trial court awarded Appellee damages for Appellant’s failure to perform his obligations under a construction contract in a workmanlike manner. Appellant appealed. Due to deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we do not reach the substantive issues and dismiss the appeal.

In the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”), Christina K. Collins sought judicial review of a disciplinary order entered against her by the Tennessee Board of Nursing (“the Board”). Finding that Ms. Collins’s petition for judicial review was untimely, the Trial Court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed her petition. Ms. Collins has appealed the Trial Court’s order of dismissal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis. The gravamen of Kevin Hardwick’s complaint is that his bloodstream contains trace quantities of five chemicals—which are themselves part of a family of thousands of chemicals whose usage is nearly ubiquitous in modern life. Hardwick does not know what companies manufactured the particular chemicals in his bloodstream; nor does he know, or indeed have much idea, whether those chemicals might someday make him sick; nor, as a result of those chemicals, does he have any sickness or symptoms now. Yet, of the thousands of companies that have manufactured chemicals of this general type over the past half-century, Hardwick has chosen to sue the ten defendants present here. His allegations regarding those defendants are both collective—rarely does he allege an action by a specific defendant—and conclusory. Yet Hardwick sought to represent a class comprising nearly every person “residing in the United States”—a class from which, under Civil Rule 23(c), nobody could choose to opt out. And as relief for his claims, Hardwick asked the district court to appoint a “Science Panel”—whose conclusions, he said, “shall be deemed definitive and binding on all the parties[.]”

The district court, for its part, certified a class comprising every person residing in the State of Ohio—some 11.8 million people. The defendants now appeal that order, arguing (among many other things) that Hardwick lacks standing to bring this case. We agree with that argument, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.

For the week of November 20, 2023 - November 24, 2023

This appeal followed the trial court’s certification of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we conclude that the trial court’s certification was improvidently granted, we dismiss the appeal.