The Defendant, Iesha Jones, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder; voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(2) (2018) (subsequently amended) (first degree felony murder), 39-13-211 (2018) (voluntary manslaughter), 39-13-403 (2018) (especially aggravated robbery), 39-13-103 (2018 (subsequently amended) (reckless endangerment). The trial court merged the first degree felony murder and voluntary manslaughter convictions and imposed a life sentence. The court also imposed sentences of twenty years for especially aggravated robbery and two years for reckless endangerment. The court ordered concurrent service of the sentences, for an effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, (2) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence, (3) the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, and (4) the court erred in denying her requested jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of others. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Circuit Court Judge Mark Rogers will retire Aug. 31, the Tennessean reports. Rogers has presided over the 16th Judicial District for 19 years, hearing cases in Rutherford and Cannon counties. He was appointed to the seat in 2004 by former Gov. Phil Bredesen, replacing retired Circuit Court Judge Steve Daniel. Rogers won three eight-year terms starting in 2006 as a Democrat and in 2014 and 2022 as an independent. The Tennessee Trial Court Vacancy Commission will conduct screening interviews with applicants for the seat on Aug. 30 at 9 a.m. CDT at the Rutherford County Courthouse in Murfreesboro. The commission will choose three finalists for Gov. Bill Lee to consider for appointment to finish Rogers’ term. 

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. It is well known that the U.S. Constitution incorporates the “sovereign immunity” from private lawsuits that the states possessed before the founding. This federal constitutional immunity covers claims filed against the states in federal court, see Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 57–73 (1996), claims filed against them in their own courts under federal law, see Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 730–54 (1999), and claims filed against them in another state’s courts, see Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485, 1493–99 (2019).

But a state’s sovereign immunity does not end with the federal Constitution. When a plaintiff pursues state claims against state defendants, these defendants may also invoke the state’s own common-law or constitutional rules of sovereign immunity. In this case, we must consider Kentucky’s sovereign-immunity law, which grants “pure” immunity to some state actors and “governmental” immunity to others. To help develop ports, Kentucky gives its localities the power to create riverport authorities. The plaintiff in this case brought state claims against a riverport authority’s executive director. The district court held that Kentucky would not grant sovereign immunity to this director when sued in her official capacity. We reverse because she is entitled to Kentucky’s “governmental” form of sovereign immunity.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted Mountain Valley Pipeline’s request to lift stays imposed by a lower court that had halted construction of the final section of a 303-mile natural gas pipeline through the federally owned Jefferson National Forest, reports Reuters. The $6.6 billion project has been embroiled in litigation since construction began in 2018. The pipeline, which extends into Appalachia, is considered key to unlocking the biggest shale gas-producing basin in the U.S. Environmentalists say the project would pollute soil and water in the forest and increase the use of natural gas, a leading greenhouse gas emitter.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. La Bamba Licensing, LLC (“La Bamba”) filed suit against La Bamba Authentic Mexican, Inc. (now known as “La Villa Rica Mexican Cuisine, Inc.”) for trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act and for common law unfair competition, alleging that La Villa Rica infringed La Bamba’s registered trademark “LA BAMBA.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Bamba. The district court then granted La Bamba an award of profits, costs, and attorneys’ fees. La Villa Rica appeals the award of profits and attorneys’ fees. We AFFIRM.

Tenant appeals the trial court’s decision to grant landlord a judgment under a holdover provision in a commercial lease. Because we conclude that landlord voluntarily relinquished its claim under the holdover provision, we reverse the trial court’s judgment of damages, late fees, and attorney’s fees, but affirm the trial court’s decision to deny tenant’s motion to amend her complaint. We remand this case for the determination of the sole issue agreed to be heard by the parties.

This appeal concerns a long-running domestic matter. Heather R. Wilder (“Mother”) and Joseph C. Wilder (“Father”) were issued a final judgment of divorce by the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) in 2010. Issues concerning child support have persisted since then. In the most recent chapter, the Trial Court allowed Mother’s attorney to withdraw five days before trial but denied her request for a continuance. The Trial Court subsequently entered its final order. Mother appeals. We find that the Trial Court abused its discretion in denying Mother a reasonable continuance. We vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for a new trial to be conducted after Mother has had a reasonable continuance in which to try to retain counsel or otherwise prepare for trial pro se.

The notice of appeal filed by the appellants, Nathan Lynn Bryant and Melissa Bryant, stated that appellants were appealing the judgment entered on September 27, 2022. Inasmuch as the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The trial court found Appellant/Father in civil contempt for alleged failure to comply with discovery propounded by Appellee/Mother. The trial court also dismissed Father’s petition to modify visitation and child support on the ground that Father’s petition constituted an abusive civil lawsuit. We reverse the trial court’s findings of civil contempt and abusive civil lawsuit. However, because the parties’ child has reached majority, we conclude that Father’s petition to modify is moot. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Father’s petition on the ground of mootness.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced today it is opening a civil rights investigation into the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department to determine whether there are systemic violations of the Constitution or federal law, reports the Commercial Appeal. The investigation will focus on MPD’s use of force and stops, searches and arrests and whether it engages in discriminatory policing. The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and attorney Kevin G. Ritz for the Western District of Tennessee. The investigation will include riding with city police officers and holding community meetings. The announcement comes six months after Memphis police officers beat 29-year-old Tyre Nichols, who died from his injuries three days later. Read Ritz's statement.