In this appeal, we address whether a Tennessee resident may sue an Alabama corporation in a Tennessee court for alleged breach of contract and breach of warranty pertaining to its construction of a custom lake house in Alabama. Tennessee resident Roger Baskin hired Pierce & Allred Construction, an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Alabama, to build a house on a parcel of land in Alabama. Mr. Baskin supplied the architectural plans and some of the materials, all sourced from Tennessee, and the parties communicated throughout the project from their respective states. However, all of Pierce & Allred Construction’s activities on the project occurred in Alabama. Mr. Baskin ultimately became dissatisfied with the quality and expense of the construction work, and he filed suit in the Davidson County Chancery Court. Pierce & Allred Construction moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the corporation lacked the “minimum contacts” with Tennessee that due process protections require. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The trial court granted the motion, finding that the events relevant to the claims occurred in Alabama and that the corporation’s contacts with Tennessee were minor and attenuated. The Court of Appeals reversed, looking to recent decisions from this Court, see Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460 (Tenn. 2020), and the United States Supreme Court, see Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (explaining that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff’s claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts). We granted permission to appeal. Based on our review, we have determined that Pierce & Allred Construction’s contacts with Tennessee were not such that the corporation reasonably should have anticipated being haled into a Tennessee court to answer this suit. In making this determination, we conclude that certain contacts with Tennessee did not reflect that the corporation purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Tennessee, while certain other contacts were not sufficiently related to Mr. Baskin’s claims to support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Thus, we hold that Mr. Baskin failed to establish a prima facie case of the minimum contacts necessary for a Tennessee court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Alabama corporation. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing Mr. Baskin’s complaint.

The Defendant, Timothy Michael Crabtree, was convicted in the Henry County Circuit Court of aggravated assault and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the evidence fails to show the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Cedric Konard Mitchell, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his ten-year sentence for two counts of domestic assault and one count of aggravated assault in case numbers 14908 and 15052. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by fully revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his ten-year sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Tracey Lynn Carter, was convicted by a Lincoln County jury of attempted aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. He received an effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellant alleges that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted aggravated assault; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication; and (3) the trial court erred in denying a sentence of split confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Plaintiffs sued for injuries and damages allegedly resulting from an automobile accident. The trial court dismissed one of two defendants based on the statute of limitations. Although the complaint was filed within one year of the accident, the original summons went unserved, and plaintiffs did not obtain issuance of new process until over a year after the issuance of the previous process. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that, because the automobile accident resulted in a criminal prosecution, the time period for issuance of new process under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3 was extended. We affirm.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. In the latest chapter in the saga of two children’s clothing manufacturers, we are asked to determine whether one of the manufacturers has properly brought trademark and trade dress infringement claims against the other. And, if not, whether the defending party is entitled to attorney’s fees. Bliss Collection, LLC and Latham Companies, LLC have had a long and acrimonious relationship after one of Bliss’s founders left the company to start Latham as a direct competitor. The parties have since engaged in sporadic litigation against each other.

The district court dismissed Bliss’s trademark and trade dress infringement claims. After Latham sought attorney’s fees for successfully defending against those claims, the district court declined to award fees to Latham. Both parties appealed. We find that Bliss has stated claims for federal and state trademark infringement but has not stated a claim for trade dress infringement. We also find that the district court did not err in denying attorney’s fees to Latham for defending the trademark and trade dress infringement claims. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Mr. Raghu Singh, guilty of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of reckless driving. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, after service of ten days in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his convictions for driving under the influence. He also asserts that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the State had established a proper chain of custody for his blood sample; and (2) by denying a motion to suppress statements he made at the scene. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles D. Perry, of two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court entered an agreed effective sentence of fifteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the prosecution was time-barred because it was commenced outside the statute of limitations; (2) his verdict was not unanimous; (3) the trial court deprived his right to present a defense by limiting expert testimony; (4) the trial court erred when it admitted character evidence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (6) the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors entitles him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Former client sued his former attorney for legal malpractice and fraud. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, but was reversed on appeal as to the fraud claims. The trial court then held a bench trial and found in favor of the defendant attorney. In a second appeal, this Court affirmed the dismissal of all fraud claims except a fraud claim related to the hourly rate charged under the parties’ written contract. That claim was remanded to the trial court for purposes of consideration of the factors outlined in in Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998). On remand, the trial judge denied the plaintiff’s efforts to disqualify him from the case and to enlarge the scope of the trial. A bench trial was eventually held, despite the plaintiff’s multiple efforts to postpone. After a late motion to continue was denied, the plaintiff did not attend trial. Following the bench trial, the trial court once again ruled in favor of the defendant attorney, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against him. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce. After trial, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce with an attached Permanent Parenting Plan regarding the parties’ minor child. The determination of child support was left blank. A supplemental order purported to “bifurcate” the issue of child support and transfer the case from the Roane County IV-D office to the Anderson County IV-D office. The father appeals. Since the issue of child support was never resolved or adjudicated, there is no final, appealable judgment. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.