This appeal involves a decision by the Town of Louisville Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) that was upheld on review by the Blount County Circuit Court (“trial court”). At its May 5, 2020 hearing, the BZA granted appellee William Mattison’s request for a variance to allow him to construct an accessory, non-attached garage on his improved real property, which structure would purportedly exceed the height limit set by town ordinance. The appellants, Frank and Tina Reed, who own property adjacent to Mattison’s property and who had opposed Mattison’s request for a variance, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court on July 5, 2022, seeking review of the BZA’s decision. The trial court conducted hearings on the Reeds’ petition in January and February 2023. On Feb. 27, 2023, the trial court entered a final order affirming the BZA’s decision to grant a variance to Mattison. The trial court found that there was a rational basis for the BZA’s decision, which was supported by material evidence, and that the BZA had acted within its scope of authority and discretion. The Reeds timely appealed. Determining that there existed no material evidence of any particular characteristic of the real property warranting the grant of a variance, we reverse the trial court’s judgment affirming the BZA’s decision and vacate the BZA’s grant of a variance to Mattison as illegal and outside the BZA’s authority.

This appeal concerns juror misconduct. Chayce Collier (“Chayce”), a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, Kendall Collier (“Plaintiff”), sued Periclis Roussis M.D. (“Dr. Roussis”), Fort Sanders Perinatal Center and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“the Hospital”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability in Chayce’s delivery. A major issue at trial was whether Dr. Roussis fell below the standard of care by failing to administer epinephrine to Plaintiff when she had an anaphylactic reaction during labor. The jury found for Defendants. However, it emerged that a juror had gone home and looked at the warning on an epipen which said that epinephrine should only be used when the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. The juror shared this information with the rest of the jury. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court first granted and then denied. Plaintiff appeals. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b), jurors may not be asked what effect, if any, that extraneous information had on them. Instead, courts look to the extraneous information itself to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that it altered the verdict. We hold that there is a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information shared with the jury in this case altered the verdict, and Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and thereby abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The father and stepmother of Macee M. filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights on three grounds. The trial court found that one ground had been proven, abandonment for failure to support, and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in Macee’s best interest. Based on these findings, the mother’s parental rights were terminated. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of her parental rights.

This appeal arises from a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother and a father to their son. The trial court found that three grounds for termination existed as to the parents: (1) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (2) persistent conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also found that the termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother and the father appeal. We reverse the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence established the ground of persistent conditions. However, we affirm its findings that the remaining grounds were proven as to both parents and that termination was in the best interest of the child.

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to decide a case testing the legality of excluding jurors on the basis of religion, reports Reuters. The court turned away a Missouri agency's bid to reverse a lesbian worker's win in a workplace bias lawsuit after three prospective jurors were excluded for citing their Christian beliefs. State officials had appealed after a lower court denied their request for a new trial. In the original trial, a jury sided with plaintiff Jean Finney in her suit against the Missouri Department of Corrections. The state argued that the removal of three jurists who expressed their religious views violated the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that three Republican-led states will not be allowed to join an appeal that will decide the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, reports Reuters. Last month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk allowed Missouri, Kansas and Idaho to join the lawsuit. The states will remain as parties in the underlying case. Today's ruling means they will not be part of an appeal of Kacsmaryk's preliminary order and a later appeals court order that put significant restrictions on mifepristone, including a ban on prescribing it by telemedicine and dispensing it by mail.

The Board of Judicial Conduct has released details about a public reprimand it imposed on Shelby County Judge Paula L. Skahan last week. The reprimand addressed two matters. The first involved "injudicious" comments Skahan made about the county’s formal district attorney and a trial judge. The second involved an ex parte conversation Skahan had about a case with the Shelby County District Attorney's office. The board found that the conversation suggested Skahan had predetermined the outcome of the case and directed the actions of the parties to reach a certain result.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has joined a bipartisan coalition urging the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to seek reform of the current practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). A PBM is a third-party company that functions as an intermediary between insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers with the aim of reducing the cost of prescription medication. The group's letter urges Congress to pass the "DRUG Act" (S. 1542/H.R. 6283), "Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act" (H.R. 2880), and the "Lower Costs, More Transparency Act" (H.R. 5378) to reform the way PBMs conduct business and bring more transparency to their work. Learn more in a news release from Skrmetti's office.

The U.S. Supreme Court has left in place the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia, which some parents claim discriminates against highly qualified Asian Americans. The Associated Press reports that the court’s order, over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, ended a legal challenge to a policy adopted in 2020 to increase diversity at the elite public school. A panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond had earlier upheld the constitutionality of the admissions policy, which gives weight in favor of applicants who are economically disadvantaged or still learning English, without taking race into account. The effect of the new policy saw an increase in the percentage of Black students from 1% to 7% and Hispanic students from 3% to 11%, while Asian American students decreased from 73% to 54%.

A new study released Monday shows that in the months after Tyre Nichols' death and passage of an ordinance preventing police from stopping drivers for low-level traffic infractions, the police department increased the number citations issued, reports the Commercial Appeal. The study, Decarcerate Memphis' annual Driving While BIPOC, used information gathered from traffic citations issued by the Memphis Police Department and Shelby County's court system to determine the impact on Black, indigenous and other people of color. The report found that the vast majority of the 2023 pretexts for stopping someone were for vehicle registration issues, and those pretexts were overwhelmingly against Black people. "... Traffic stops are ineffective at reducing or preventing crime," said Alex Hensley, policy chair and steering committee member for the organization.