Amy Chan (Wife) and Henry Chan (Husband) were granted a divorce in 2005, and the division of their marital assets was reserved for a future hearing. Some ten years later, in 2015, the trial court entered an order decreeing a division as outlined in a proposal by Wife. Husband appeals, maintaining that the trial court had previously ruled from the bench that the assets would be divided based upon a proposal filed by him. We affirm.

This is a divorce case. On appeal, Vincente Acosta (Husband) argues that the trial court erred in reopening the proof shortly after the conclusion of a nonjury trial. The court did so for the purpose of receiving additional evidence on the subject of spousal support. Husband also argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay Kity Sonia Acosta (Wife) alimony in futuro of $1,500 per month. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the proof and thereafter awarding Wife spousal support in futuro.

James Brooks began working for Healthcare Horizons, Inc. in October 2013. He was required to sign a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement (CNSA). The CNSA provides that disputes regarding the agreement would be settled by binding arbitration; there were exceptions – claims requesting equitable or injunctive relief were to be resolved by litigation in Knoxville. In March 2014, Healthcare Horizons terminated Brooks. He subsequently accepted a position with a new firm founded by John Graham, the former president of Healthcare Horizons.

The surviving spouse in this wrongful death action appeals the trial court?s dismissal of him as a plaintiff. The decedent and surviving spouse had one child together, who was eighteen months old at the time of the decedent?s fatal automobile accident in October 2010. The decedent and surviving spouse were living apart, and the child had been residing solely with the decedent.

Defendant, Domnick Doria, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for 39 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant was convicted as charged in counts two, three, four, and six. Defendant was convicted of a lesser-included offense in counts one, five, and seven through thirty-nine. Defendant received an effective sentence of 13 years for all his convictions.

Victor Andrea Askew, the Petitioner, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief alleging a single claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the judge ruling on the motion for new trial should apply the version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-1- 305 that was in effect at the time of the Petitioner?s offense. The post-conviction court denied relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Johnathan Dale Abernathy, was found not guilty of the charge of domestic assault. At his arraignment, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-14-202(e), the trial court had found that he could pay a portion of his attorney fees even though the public defender was appointed to represent him. He had only paid a portion of the fees prior to trial. Subsequent to the trial, Defendant filed a motion to remit some or all of the fees.

Legal Services Corporation, Microsoft Corporation and Pro Bono Net are teaming up to develop state legal portals to direct individuals with civil legal needs to the most appropriate forms of assistances. The initiative, announced earlier this month, will develop one or two statewide pilots to demonstrate. Microsoft has committed at least $1 million in funding, technical support and project management services. Read more from LawSites. 

Jackson attorney Pam Ford Wright was recently honored with the Sterling Award as one of West Tennessee’s 20 Most Influential Women. She received the award for her focus on improving access to health services, elder care and caregiver support while working as a public interest attorney. Wright, owner of the Wright Law Firm PLLC and member of the TBA Elder Law Section Executive Council, was an attorney with West Tennessee Legal Services for many years.

The Washington Redskins filed a petition yesterday asking the U.S. supreme Court to to hear its case over its controversial trademark. The NFL team is asking for its case to be heard alongside The Slants, an Asian-American band, who wants to trademark their name. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the band’s trademark attempt, but the government has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling. The case challenges the same piece of U.S. law that the Redskins’ case does, CNN Money reports.