Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. We affirm.

Defendant, Anthony Cooke, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probation and order to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted certified copies of arrest warrants as exhibits to the revocation hearing and that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Michael J.W. Potter, appeals the summary dismissal of his ex parte communication that the trial court treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Mery Conley Rodgers, of aggravated assault by strangulation, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, domestic assault, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) that the trial court erred when it concluded he lacked standing to challenge the search of his vehicle; (2) that the trial court erred when it prevented the Defendant from introducing evidence from a prior domestic dispute; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault and especially aggravated kidnapping; and (4) that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

A paramedic sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. He asserted that in violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act he was discharged by the Nashville Fire Department because he refused to participate in or remain silent about the department forcing mentally competent inmates to undergo medical treatment without their consent. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the trial court granted the motion. The paramedic appealed. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal.

READLER, Circuit Judge. As the district court aptly observed, this case has proceeded as a metaphorical “ping pong” ball, bouncing between Ohio’s federal and state courts. The latest iteration has the case back in federal court, but only because the district court agreed to equitably toll the 30-day deadline for removing the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Helpfully for us, the Supreme Court recently addressed the viability of equitable tolling in the removal context. Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel ex rel. Michigan, 146 S. Ct. 1074 (2026). But unhelpfully for defendant GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, the Supreme Court held that § 1446(b)(1)’s 30- day deadline cannot be equitably tolled. See id. at 1086. Because Enbridge forecloses GateHouse’s equitable tolling argument, and because there is no other basis for authorizing GateHouse’s otherwise untimely removal, we reverse the district court’s judgment with instructions to again remand the case to state court.

A restaurant based in Williamson County sued a restaurant based in Rutherford County in Williamson County Chancery Court over the use of the name Jasmine. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of venue, and the plaintiff amended the complaint, including allegations that the defendant provided services in Williamson County, advertised in Williamson County, and caused customer confusion and economic harm in Williamson County. The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding the fact that the plaintiff alleged economic harm in Williamson County was not sufficient to establish venue. We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal addresses sealing judicial records. Three filings were sealed without a written order. The presiding judge later recused herself and the matter was transferred. Then The Nashville Banner intervened to unseal the records. The trial court denied the motion to unseal. The appellate court denied the Rule 10 appeal and then denied the petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse. Rule 10 interlocutory review is available to media intervenors when judicial proceedings are closed or documents are sealed. Sealing judicial records protected by the First Amendment right of access requires entry of a written order after finding that a compelling interest necessitates sealing. Any such order must be narrowly tailored and seal only those judicial records, or the portions thereof, necessary to protect the identified interest. After conducting a de novo review, we do not find a compelling interest necessitating sealing. The documents shall be made available to the public.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Ralphelle Antre James, of second degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty-six years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises two related issues. First, he asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion to continue the trial to investigate a late-added witness. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the late-added witness to testify, contending that the testimony violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and denied him a fair trial. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of her motion to recuse the trial court judge, which raised allegations of bias related to, inter alia, the treatment of her pro se status and her lack of personal notice of court filings, the lack of response to her ex parte communication, the failure to report alleged attorney misconduct, and the entry of certain court orders. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.