The Knoxville Bar Association (KBA) today released the results of a survey evaluating four candidates running for Knoxville municipal judge in the Aug. 29 election. The survey asked each KBA member to rate candidates on seven attributes: knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, professional ethics and temperament. The purpose of the survey, according to KBA President Loretta Cravens, is to inform the public of the opinions of attorneys actively practicing in the region regarding candidates’ fitness to serve in a judicial position. Candidates reviewed include Andrew Beamer, Tyler M. Caviness, Judge John R. Rosson Jr. and Mary L. Ward.

In 2012, Robert and Elizabeth Ann Lewis created a revocable trust and transferred thereto their rental property business as well as real estate. Several years later, after Robert was deceased and Elizabeth had become incapacitated, one of the Lewis’ sons, acting as Elizabeth’s attorney-in-fact, created a new trust with terms different from that of the original. A different Lewis sibling, Kim Williams, disputed the son’s authority to create the second trust pursuant to both the terms of the original trust and his power of attorney. Kim Williams claimed, inter alia, that the son breached several fiduciary duties in creating the second trust. Following discovery and an unsuccessful mediation, the Chancery Court for Rhea County (the “trial court”) denied Ms. Williams’ motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Ms. Williams appeals. Having reviewed the record and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the trial court’s ruling is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

In this post-divorce dispute, the wife filed a petition for criminal contempt. After testimony was heard, the parties announced in broad terms that they had reached a settlement. Thereafter, the parties could not agree on the terms of the settlement. At a hearing on the husband’s motion requesting approval of his proposed order, the court dismissed the petition on grounds of double jeopardy. We have determined that the trial court erred in dismissing the case and remand for further proceedings.

Citizens sought to stop the construction and operation of a soccer stadium at The Fairgrounds Nashville. The plaintiffs advanced a plethora of legal theories in support of their claims that the soccer development violated the Metro Charter. After a month-long trial, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On appeal, the plaintiffs raise two issues: (1) whether the trial court’s orders were final; and (2) whether the court erred in ruling that the Metro Charter did not require a public referendum before any demolition and new development could occur at the Fairgrounds. We conclude that the court’s orders were final. But, because the challenged demolition and construction have already happened, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti today filed a federal lawsuit to immediately stop liquor shipments into the state by six out-of-state companies. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants unlawfully facilitated shipments of distilled spirits for which no state license is available. It seeks an injunction under federal law and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The AG’s office reports that undercover agents from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission purchased and received unauthenticated and untaxed distilled spirits from each defendant in violation of the state’s three-tier alcohol licensing system. Earlier this week, Skrmetti helped lead a multi-state effort to advise Fortune 100 companies against employing racially discriminatory employment and contracting practices. Read the letter.

This is an appeal from an order requiring a trustee to provide an updated accounting to a beneficiary at the beneficiary’s expense. Because the order does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

This appeal concerns the criminal gang-enhancement statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121, and specifically what is required in an indictment to sufficiently plead and provide notice under the statute. Dashun Shackleford (“Defendant”) was arrested for aggravated robbery as to four individuals in September 2016, along with his friend and fellow gang member, Jalon Copeland. Defendant’s indictment contained twenty counts: four alternative counts each of aggravated robbery against four victims and four corresponding counts of criminal gang offense enhancement. The gang-enhancement statute requires the State to give notice in separate counts of the indictment of the enhancement applicable under the statute. The indictment also alleged that Defendant was a “Crips” gang member and listed the convictions of fifteen alleged fellow Crips members to prove Defendant’s gang had a “pattern of criminal gang activity,” as also required by the gang-enhancement statute. A Knox County jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court merged the aggravated robbery convictions into four counts and imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years to be served at eighty-five percent. In this case, the gangenhancement conviction increased Defendant’s aggravated robbery convictions from Class B felonies to Class A felonies. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his gang-enhancement conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, taking particular issue with the allegation in the indictment that Defendant and the other gang members listed therein were plain Crips. In the gangenhancement phase of trial, the proof established that the majority of the gang members listed in the indictment, including Defendant, were members of several different subsets of the Crips gang, with only one of the listed men identified as a plain Crip. The intermediate court concluded that the State failed to prove that Defendant’s subset gang had engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and failed to comply with the notice requirements of the gang-enhancement statute. In doing so, the court also, sua sponte, determined that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and proof at trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals, therefore, reverted Defendant’s aggravated robbery convictions to a classification lower in the absence of the gang enhancement. After review, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its decision. The gang-enhancement statute is worded broadly and does not require the State to specify in the indictment a criminal defendant’s gang subset nor that the defendant is in the same gang subset as the individuals whose criminal activity establishes the gang’s “pattern of criminal gang activity.” Defendant waived all other issues by failing to properly raise them before the trial court or on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the trial court’s judgments are reinstated.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that the criminal gang-enhancement statute is worded broadly and does not require the state to specify a criminal defendant’s gang subset in an indictment. The statute also does not require the indictment to set forth that the defendant is in the same gang subset as the individuals whose criminal activity establishes the gang’s “pattern of criminal gang activity.” Read more about the case from the Administrative Office of the Courts or read the opinion.

Tennessee counties received $31.4 million from the state’s Opioid Abatement Council in the first round of payments, Tennessee Lookout reports. Additional payments will occur yearly over the next two decades. Funds come from a $600 million pot paid into by AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, McKesson and Johnson & Johnson. Under state law, 35% of the funds go directly to counties while the other 65% is set aside for grant programs. The news outlet has an interactive map showing how much each county will receive. In addition, Tennessee could have access to another $490 million if proposed settlements with Allergan, CVS, Teva, Walgreens and Walmart are approved.

Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law has promoted Jordan Houser to director of career services and alumni relations. In his new role, Houser will lead the Office of Career Services and counsel current law students and alumni regarding all aspects of career development. Houser joined the law school in 2021 and has been serving as assistant director of career services. A 2017 graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law, Houser previously served as a staff attorney in the Tennessee Valley Authority's Office of General Counsel and as a real estate associate in the Knoxville office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.