The Appalachian Public Interest and Environmental Law (APIEL) Conference is an annual gathering of lawyers, scientists, students and members of the general public to discuss environmental issues and happenings in Appalachia, public policy and grassroots initiatives. This will be the 14th Annual APIEL Conference, featuring topics such as the Kingston Coal Ash litigation and ethical considerations for environmental lawyers. The conference will run Oct. 21 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT at the University of Tennessee College of Law. There will be a pre-APIEL social event on Oct. 20, from 6-9 p.m. at Albright Grove Brewing Company for speakers and attendees to meet and connect. There will also be a post-APIEL social event on Oct. 21 from 6-9 p.m. at Hi-Wire Brewing. Click here for more information and to register.

Thirty law students from the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law met with members of the TBA YLD Board today. Board members Brande Boyd, Patrick Morris and Jennifer Sneed joined YLD President Quinton Thompson in an interactive panel to discuss the many benefits of getting involved with the TBA. Students were encouraged to apply for the award-winning Diversity Leadership Institute which begins in January and to attend CLEs which are available to them at no cost with their free law school membership.

The Board of Judicial Conduct has issued a public reprimand for Putnam Country Judge R. Steven Randolph related to comments made in a video posted to the Putnam County School's Instagram page. Read the reprimand here.

Tennessee's Finance and Administration Commissioner Jim Bryson reported state revenues for August came in $39.4 million less than estimated and $1.7 million lower than the same month a year ago, reports Tennessee Lookout. The 0.11% drop was mostly due to a decrease in franchise and excise tax collections, according to Bryson. Sales taxes were $25.4 million higher than estimated for August. But the state also provided a break on grocery sales taxes and a weekend-long sales tax holiday, much of which was part of a $400 million tax reduction set to include business tax breaks scheduled to kick in permanently next year. 

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. In the latest chapter in the saga of two children’s clothing manufacturers, we are asked to determine whether one of the manufacturers has properly brought trademark and trade dress infringement claims against the other. And, if not, whether the defending party is entitled to attorney’s fees. Bliss Collection, LLC and Latham Companies, LLC have had a long and acrimonious relationship after one of Bliss’s founders left the company to start Latham as a direct competitor. The parties have since engaged in sporadic litigation against each other.

The district court dismissed Bliss’s trademark and trade dress infringement claims. After Latham sought attorney’s fees for successfully defending against those claims, the district court declined to award fees to Latham. Both parties appealed. We find that Bliss has stated claims for federal and state trademark infringement but has not stated a claim for trade dress infringement. We also find that the district court did not err in denying attorney’s fees to Latham for defending the trademark and trade dress infringement claims. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Tennessee Attorney General Skrmetti announced today that a $44.5 million settlement has been reached with K-VA-T Food Stores, known as Food City, over the grocery store chain’s opioid-related misconduct. Most of the settlement will go to Tennessee’s Opioid Abatement Fund to support efforts in addressing the opioid epidemic. Food City has agreed to ensure future compliance by providing additional training to pharmacy staff, updating their prescription-validation process and monitoring and reporting suspicious activity. Read the full press release.

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Mr. Raghu Singh, guilty of two counts of driving under the influence and one count of reckless driving. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, after service of ten days in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his convictions for driving under the influence. He also asserts that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the State had established a proper chain of custody for his blood sample; and (2) by denying a motion to suppress statements he made at the scene. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles D. Perry, of two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court entered an agreed effective sentence of fifteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the prosecution was time-barred because it was commenced outside the statute of limitations; (2) his verdict was not unanimous; (3) the trial court deprived his right to present a defense by limiting expert testimony; (4) the trial court erred when it admitted character evidence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (6) the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors entitles him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Former client sued his former attorney for legal malpractice and fraud. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, but was reversed on appeal as to the fraud claims. The trial court then held a bench trial and found in favor of the defendant attorney. In a second appeal, this Court affirmed the dismissal of all fraud claims except a fraud claim related to the hourly rate charged under the parties’ written contract. That claim was remanded to the trial court for purposes of consideration of the factors outlined in in Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998). On remand, the trial judge denied the plaintiff’s efforts to disqualify him from the case and to enlarge the scope of the trial. A bench trial was eventually held, despite the plaintiff’s multiple efforts to postpone. After a late motion to continue was denied, the plaintiff did not attend trial. Following the bench trial, the trial court once again ruled in favor of the defendant attorney, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against him. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce. After trial, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce with an attached Permanent Parenting Plan regarding the parties’ minor child. The determination of child support was left blank. A supplemental order purported to “bifurcate” the issue of child support and transfer the case from the Roane County IV-D office to the Anderson County IV-D office. The father appeals. Since the issue of child support was never resolved or adjudicated, there is no final, appealable judgment. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.