This Thursday, ethics expert Stuart Teicher will present three virtual ethics courses that will benefit all practitioners: When a Lie Isn't a Lie: The Ethics of Half-Truths, beginning at 9 a.m., focuses on lies clients tell and how attorneys can handle them; 10 Coping Skills that Come from the Ethics Rules, beginning at 10:15 a.m., explores the rigors of the practice of law and ways to overcome challenges; and ChatGPT, Siri and Alexa are Out to Get You, beginning at 11:30 a.m., breaks down the upsides of, and the problems with, the hottest technologies. Join us for one course or all three. All times central.

The TBA Health Law Section will provide a plated lunch for section members at its annual forum on Nov. 3 from 12:15-1:15 p.m. CDT. At this lunch business meeting, we will recognize and celebrate the leadership of Section Chair Mark Ison and formally vote on leadership for the 2023–2024 bar year.

This free event is open to ALL section members regardless of forum attendance. A link to RSVP is included below. Space is limited and the form will close once attendance is at max capacity. Please contact Section Coordinator Jarod Word with any additional questions. Thanks to Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman PC for sponsoring this year's section lunch!

When: Friday, Nov. 3, 12:15-1:15 p.m. CDT
Where: Music City Center Nashville, Room 214, 201 Rep. John Lewis Way S.

RSVP NOW

The deadline to book a discounted hotel room for the 35th Annual TBA Health Law Forum is this Wednesday, Oct. 11. The TBA room rate is $279 per night. This discounted rate only applies to the nights of Nov. 1-2, and will expire once all blocked rooms are sold out. Reserve your room here.

The TBA Health Law Forum is the premier event for health care lawyers, featuring top experts providing essential updates and discussion on issues affecting the practice area. Hot topics for this year’s forum include: The False Claims Act, No Surprises, AI in health care, telehealth, antitrust laws, regulatory fraud and abuse, Tennessee legislative updates, a state case review, ethics and more. Register now.

Memphis voters on Thursday elected Paul Young, the current head of the Downtown Memphis Commission, as their next mayor. The Commercial Appeal reports that with 27.62% of the vote, Young won the mayoral race with 24,408 total votes — 4,500 more than his closest competitor, Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner. Former mayor Willie Herenton came in third, followed by attorney Van Turner. Voters also selected a number of new council members. Here are those results. Three of the council’s single-member districts remain undecided after no candidate garnered a majority of the vote, according to unofficial results. The races for those districts will go to a runoff on Nov. 16.

PER CURIAM. When Michigan took custody of Dennis O’Connor’s property under its unclaimed property laws, it did not acquire title outright. As a result, O’Connor retained certain rights, including those to just compensation and pre-deprivation process. But once O’Connor filed for compensation, a dispute over these rights arose. Michigan reimbursed O’Connor for the original value of his property, but not for any net interest earned after its liquidation. And according to O’Connor, Michigan failed to provide him with pre-deprivation process. So, he sued the State and two officials in their personal capacities, alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed O’Connor’s case with prejudice, holding that the employees were entitled to qualified immunity and the State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

As to O’Connor’s claims against the officials, we affirm in part and vacate in part. The officials are entitled to qualified immunity on O’Connor’s taking claims but not his due process claims. And while the district court correctly dismissed O’Connor’s claims against the State, it should not have dismissed them with prejudice.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Since 1979, Tennessee has made it a crime for anyone other than election officials to distribute the State’s official form for applying to vote absentee. During much of this time, Tennessee kept close guard of this form to deter fraud. But election officials now make the form widely available online so that eligible voters may more easily apply. According to the Plaintiffs, this change has rendered the ban on distributing the application form “outdated.” The Plaintiffs want to hand out this form while they encourage absentee voting at their get-out-the-vote drives. They allege that the First Amendment gives them the right to do so. Because they seek to distribute the form while expressing a political message, they argue, we must subject the ban to strict scrutiny. At the least, they say, we must evaluate the ban using the so-called “Anderson-Burdick” balancing test that applies to some election challenges.

We disagree on both fronts. Tennessee’s ban prohibits an act: distributing a government form. This act qualifies as conduct, not speech. Admittedly, the First Amendment provides some protection to “expressive conduct.” But strict scrutiny does not apply to Tennessee’s ban because it neutrally applies no matter the message that a person seeks to convey and because it burdens nobody’s ability to engage in actual speech. We have also never extended Anderson-Burdick’s balancing test to this sort of speech claim. At most, the Supreme Court’s lenient First Amendment test for neutral laws that regulate conduct applies here. And because the ban survives this nondemanding test, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ complaint.

The Petitioner, Donald H. Runions, appeals the Lewis County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his multiple convictions for violation of the Child Protection Act, rape of a child, and aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to lodge an objection or move for a continuance due to the Petitioner’s absence from certain pretrial evidentiary hearings; (2) failing to present a sound trial strategy based upon adequate preparation; and (3) failing to allow the Petitioner to testify on his own behalf at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Marco Luciano Cianfarani, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of aggravated rape, a Class A felony; three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony; and possession of a weapon by a person with a prior felony conviction, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-502(a)(2) (2018) (subsequently amended) (aggravated rape), 39-13-102(a)(1)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103(a) (2018) (subsequently amended) (reckless endangerment), 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (weapon possession by a convicted felon). The Defendant was sentenced to serve an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated rape and aggravated assault convictions, (2) the trial court erred in permitting the testimony from a witness of whom the defense received late notice, (3) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the Defendant’s prior assault of the victim, and (4) the trial court erred in instructing the jurors to continue deliberating after being notified that one juror disagreed with the other eleven. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant applied for a special exception permit allowing it to operate a liquor store in a location designated as a C-2 Convenience Commercial Zone. The appellee, City Council for the City of Chattanooga, denied the application based upon a councilmember’s statements that “the City is turning that area around to meet some different purposes.” The appellant sought review from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, which upheld the decision of City Council. Following careful review, we reverse.

Teams of pro bono attorneys, paralegals and law students in Nashville and Jackson, Mississippi, will compete in the 2nd Annual Capital City Pro Bono Challenge to see which city handles the most expungement cases at designated clinics. Four law firms with offices in both cities, Adams & Reese, Baker Donelson, Bradley and Butler Snow, are joining forces with volunteers from corporate legal departments, law schools and legal aid providers. The first Nashville clinic will be held Oct. 11 from 9 a.m. to noon CDT at 154 Rep. John Lewis Way, North. The event is hosted in partnership with Legal Aid Society of Nashville & Middle Tennessee, The Contributor and the Office of the Metro Nashville Criminal Court Clerk.