The Appellant brought suit against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s clinic, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. After appellate briefing and oral argument but prior to the filing of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court, the psychiatrist died. The Appellant became aware of the death after the Tennessee Supreme Court denied his application for permission to appeal. He, subsequently, filed numerous motions for relief in the trial court. The trial court denied relief under Rule 60 and denied the other motions. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a general claim of negligence stemming from a dog bite. The plaintiffs adopted a dog from an animal shelter owned and operated by the defendant, a governmental entity. The dog bit one of the plaintiffs shortly after adoption. The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the shelter had a duty to warn them of the dog’s dangerous propensities but failed to do so. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the incident, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not establish the defendant owed them a duty to warn. Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

The trial court entered a parenting plan setting parenting time and child support between Mother and Father. Mother appealed. Mother raises a due process challenge to the trial extending into the late evening of the last day. She also challenges the trial court’s analysis of the best interest factors, its allocation of parenting time, its designation of Father as the primary residential parent, its awarding to Father sole decision-making authority, and its denial of Mother’s motion to alter or amend. Father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the trial court’s ruling and award attorney’s fees.

Defendant, Elliot Arnaz Price, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for one count of burglary. After trial, a petit jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court classified Defendant as a career offender and sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary; (2) the trial court committed reversible error in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior charge for burglary and of Defendant’s conduct underlying the burglary charge; (3) the trial court committed reversible error by classifying him as a career offender; (4) the trial court committed plain error in violation of Defendant’s confrontation rights by admitting the arresting officer’s affidavit from a prior theft case; and (5) the trial court committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury that the “without the consent of the property owner” element of burglary applied to Defendant’s “actions” rather than Defendant’s “entry” onto the victim’s property.2 After review, we conclude there are instances of error made by the trial court, but determine such errors were harmless and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Shay Tyler Little, appeals his Montgomery County Circuit Court conviction of aggravated burglary, for which he received a suspended sentence of six years’ supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

An employee suffered severe injuries while working for a subcontractor and sought workers’ compensation benefits from the logistics company that had retained the subcontractor. In response, the logistics company filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that it was exempt from liability as a “common carrier. ” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the logistics company, concluding that the company’s federal operating authority established its common carrier status as a matter of law. The injured employee appeals, arguing that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the logistics company’s status because it exclusively served a single customer rather than the general public. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Shaun Poole, pled guilty in the Henry County General Sessions Court to violating a no-contact order, and the court imposed a fully suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the circuit court and subsequently sought correction of his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The circuit court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider a Rule 36.1 challenge to a judgment entered in the general sessions court and dismissed the claim. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. However, because the appellate record does not clearly establish the status of the Defendant’s remaining post-conviction claims, we remand the case for the circuit court to clarify the status of those claims and to conduct any further proceedings required by law.

A Tennessee man will receive $835,000 from Perry County after he was jailed for 37 days for posting on social media about the assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk, The Associated Press reports. Lexington resident Larry Bushart was arrested in September after refusing to take down Facebook memes that joked about Kirk's killing. The post that prompted his arrest referenced President Donald Trump's 2024 comments after a school shooting in Iowa. Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems claimed the meme amounted to a threat of mass violence for the local high school, which shares the name of the Iowa school. Bushart and his attorneys dispute that claim. As part of the settlement, the 61-year-old will drop the federal civil rights lawsuit he filed against the county for violating his constitutional rights. While Bushart, a former police officer, was in jail, he lost his post-retirement job, missed his wedding anniversary and was not present for the birth of his granddaughter.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Steve Karacson set fire to his own house. So a Michigan jury convicted him of arson and insurance fraud at a trial where he represented himself. Karacson then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he didn’t waive his right to counsel. But the district court denied his petition because Michigan state courts reasonably rejected his claim on direct appeal. We affirm.

Tony Von Carruthers, a death-row inmate scheduled for execution on May 21, 2026, filed a motion requesting last-minute DNA testing of fingernail scrapings and bindings from the murder victims. Mr. Carruthers sought an expedited ruling on the motion without an evidentiary hearing. After analyzing the request under the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 (DNA Act), the post-conviction court denied the motion. Mr. Carruthers appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon motion of Mr. Carruthers, this Court assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-3- 201(d). Because Mr. Carruthers has failed to establish the statutory criteria for ordering analysis under the DNA Act, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.