1. On page one, added a footnote that becomes the new footnote #1. It states: "The original Court of Appeals opinion in this matter was filed on January 9, 2024. Ms. Hagh and Mr. Manookian filed petitions to rehear. We have reviewed this matter and agree that the January 9, 2024 opinion should be withdrawn. It is hereby withdrawn and replaced by this opinion, which is filed with an order of this Court granting the petitions to rehear regarding the second recusal motion and denying the other requests in the petitions."

2. On page 2, what was originally footnote #1 is now footnote #2. Changed the footnote and it now states: "Mr. Manookian was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in September 2018. Tenn. Sup. Ct. Order, No. M2019-00630-SC-BAR-BP, Order Reinstating Temporary Suspension (filed Oct. 11, 2019). On May 17, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an Order dissolving the temporary suspension of Mr. Manookian’s law license subject to his ongoing compliance with certain conditions. Id. On October 11, 2019, Mr. Manookian’s suspension from the practice of law was reinstated. Id. On February 16, 2024, the Tennessee Supreme Court entered an opinion in Manookian v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, --- S.W.3d ---, No. M2022-00075-SC-R3-BP (Tenn. 2024), disbarring Mr. Manookian from the practice of law in Tennessee."

3. Beginning on page 17, completely replaced the analysis for the section titled "D. Plaintiff's attorneys' second motion to recuse the trial judge." This change goes all the way to the bottom of page 19.

The East Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women (ETLAW) will hold a reception with law students from the University of Tennessee College of Law and Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law on March 19 from 5-7 p.m. EDT. The event will take place at Monkey's Bar, 103 Depot Ave., near the Old City. Tickets are $10 for ETLAW members, $25 for non-members and free for law students. Register and purchase tickets here.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Alison Kareem appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O’Malley. Kareem sued Defendants on the grounds that two state election laws, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3501.35(A)(4) and 3599.20, violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment by prohibiting her from displaying her marked ballot to others. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment because it concluded that Kareem lacked Article III standing. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Michael Robert Quinn (“Defendant”) appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving on a suspended license, and violation of the financial responsibility law, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court should have dismissed the presentment based upon the denial of his right to a preliminary hearing; (2) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle; (3) the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from two searches of his cell phone; (4) the failure to make a return on the arrest warrant invalidated the warrant, resulting in a warrantless search and seizure of Defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s pro se request for a continuance of his trial; (6) the trial court erroneously admitted text messages found on the cell phone in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (8) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of twenty-five years with a one hundred percent release eligibility. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case concerns whether a parcel of real property is subject to certain restrictions contained in a previously recorded declaration of restrictive covenants. In the proceedings below, the trial court dismissed a homeowner’s association’s lawsuit which sought to enforce the declaration’s architectural review restrictions against the owners of the property. Upon review, we determine that the declaration did not expressly include the property at issue, nor was the property validly made subject to the restrictions within the declaration. Additionally, we reject the homeowner’s association’s arguments that the property was restricted to the terms of the declaration by way of an implied negative reciprocal easement or by waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Lawyers in Chattanooga recently gathered to remember colleagues that were lost in the past year. The Chattanooga Bar Association’s annual memorial service was held March 1 in the Hamilton County Commission Room of the county courthouse. Among those honored were William Thomas Alt, James Anderson Jr., Thomas Maxfield ”Max” Bahner, former Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice William “Muecke” Barker, Mark Johnson Mayfield and John Wolfe Jr. Read about the tributes shared at the event in the Hamilton County Herald.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this week extended a temporary pause on a Texas law allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. His action gives the justices additional time to weigh a request by President Joe Biden's administration to freeze an order from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the law to take effect while being challenged. The administration had sued to block the measure in January, arguing it interferes with the federal government's power to regulate immigration. Alito's new order is set to expire on March 18, extending the pause from the original expiration date of March 13, Reuters reports.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has adopted a new rule aimed at curtailing “judge shopping,” whereby state attorneys general, activists and companies file lawsuits against government policies in courthouses where one or two sympathetic judges are virtually guaranteed to hear the case. The move reportedly comes in response to concerns from the American Bar Association, the Biden administration and other Democratic lawmakers about the number of suits being filed in single-judge divisions in Texas, which have limited President Joe Biden's policy agenda. Under the new policy, lawsuits seeking to block state or federal laws will be randomly assigned to a judge in the federal district. Some judges have criticized the rule, saying it appears to clash with a federal law that  gives district courts control over the allocation of cases on their dockets. Others have questioned the logistics of transferring cases, Reuters reports.

Diversity Law Week students participated in a unique opportunity at the Court of Appeals in Nashville today. The students met for a Q&A session and tour with Judge Andy D. Bennett. The students learned the history of the Supreme Court building, the appellate process, and what clerks and judges do. The event concluded with a tour of the court's museum, an explanation of the formation of the Tennessee Constitution and a chance to view interesting artifacts. Special thanks to Judge Bennett and Nashville attorney Erin Shackelford for meeting with the students. See photos from the day.

Volunteer attorneys and notaries are needed for a wills clinic for Brentwood first responders. The clinic will be held on March 30 beginning at 9 a.m. CDT in the Community Room of the Brentwood Police Headquarters located at 910 Heritage Way, Brentwood 37027. For more information and to volunteer contact Charles Ferguson.