Gov. Bill Lee told reporters yesterday that he hopes the state can forge a better path with whoever succeeds current Nashville Mayor John Cooper, WPLN reports. “I look forward to working with the next mayor, whoever that is, to make sure that we keep Nashville one of the most exciting cities in America — keep it moving in that direction and to minimize the politics at play,” Lee said. Republicans in the General Assembly made their displeasure with city officials known throughout the past legislative session, passing measures to cut the Metro Council in half, changing the makeup of the city’s sports and airport authorities, and disbanding the community oversight board.

The Memphis Bar Association will hold its Second Saturday Legal Clinic tomorrow from 10 a.m. to noon CDT at the Benjamin Hooks Central Library, 3030 Poplar Ave., Memphis 38111. The association’s Family Law Section is sponsoring the day’s event. Volunteers should arrive by 9:30 a.m. for instructions. Sign up here to volunteer.

Kenneth J. Mynatt (“Plaintiff”) served as the vice president of the local chapter of his union. He filed an action for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy against the union, the local chapter, and several individuals associated with the union. He alleged that after he publicly criticized the union’s financial waste, its leadership accused him of misusing union funds. Those accusations led to his indictment on two felony charges. In the resulting criminal case, the State filed a motion to retire the charges for one year, and those charges were ultimately dismissed after the year passed. In Plaintiff’s complaint for malicious prosecution, he stated that he continued to maintain his innocence, that he refused any plea deals, and that the criminal case terminated in his favor because it was ultimately dismissed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the retirement and dismissal of the criminal charges was not a favorable termination on the merits. Thus, they argued his complaint was missing an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the underlying criminal proceedings terminated in his favor. The defendants sought review from this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard for determining what constitutes a favorable termination for the purpose of a malicious prosecution claim. We conclude that the prohibition in Himmelfarb v. Allain, 380 S.W.3d 35 (Tenn. 2012), precluding a factintensive and subjective inquiry into the reasons and circumstances leading to dispositions in civil cases also applies to dispositions in criminal cases. We hold that plaintiffs can pursue a claim for malicious prosecution only if an objective examination, limited to the documents disposing of the proceeding or the applicable procedural rules, indicates the termination of the underlying criminal proceeding reflects on the merits of the case and was due to the innocence of the accused. Under this standard, Mr. Mynatt did not allege sufficient facts for a court to conclude that the dismissal of his criminal case was a favorable termination. We therefore reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss.

The Defendant, Jeremiah Sweet, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and execution of his four-year sentence for aggravated statutory rape, simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and theft of property valued at $1000 or less. Although the Defendant admits to violating the terms of his probation, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm.

In August of 2018, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) secured an ex parte order placing B.B.,1 the minor daughter of Wendy Dawn Hancock, Defendant, in the custody of DCS after a referral prompted an investigation. During the span of several days, Defendant and B.B. stayed at both a hotel in Lebanon and Defendant’s attorney’s, Connie Reguli’s (“Ms. Reguli’s”) home in Brentwood without ever being formally served with the ex parte order. Police eventually located B.B. and Defendant in Brentwood. Defendant was indicted for one count of custodial interference, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-306. Ms. Reguli was also charged with several offenses for her actions. Defendant sought a dismissal of the indictment before trial. The trial court denied the motion. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of custodial interference. She was sentenced to two years on supervised probation. The trial court denied the motion for new trial; Defendant appealed. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the indictment should be dismissed because it fails to allege all of the elements of custodial interference; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of custodial interference; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the ex parte custody order was “valid and enforceable”; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; and (5) Tennessee should adopt an advice of counsel defense for specific intent crimes. Because the trial court improperly instructed the jury essentially removing one of the elements of the offense and lowering the burden of proof, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and vacate Defendant’s conviction. We remand the case to the trial court for any further proceedings that may be necessary.

A mother appeals the chancery court’s decision to terminate her parental rights based on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and support and severe child abuse. The mother also challenges the chancery court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The petitioners challenge the chancery court’s dismissal of persistence of conditions ground for termination. We reverse the court’s decision to terminate based on abandonment by failure to visit and support, but we affirm the court’s decision in all other aspects.

During a special called meeting last night, the Johnson County Commission voted to select former Rep. Timothy Hill to temporarily fill a vacancy created by the recent resignation of Rep. Scotty Campbell. The commission chose Hill over fellow candidates Neal Kerney, Angie Stanley, Stacy Vaughan and Lori Love, WJHL reports. Hill was a member of the House of Representatives from 2013-2020 but stepped down from his seat when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress. Campbell replaced him in the state legislature. A primary election will be held on June 22 followed by the general election on Aug. 3 to fill the seat for the remainder of the term.

This case involves enforcement of an arbitration award arising from a defaulted promissory note. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for breach of contract and enforcement of a promissory note. Ultimately, the parties participated in binding arbitration per the terms of their agreement. The plaintiff obtained an award in arbitration against the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant now appeals. Having reviewed the record, we determine that the defendant has waived his argument on appeal and affirm the trial court’s order.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts he is entitled to additional medical and temporary disability benefits. The employee fell at work and sustained a left clavicle fracture. The employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided authorized treatment for his condition, including surgery, physical therapy, and referrals to other specialists for evaluation of complaints of dizziness and back pain. After being placed at maximum medical improvement, the employee sought additional medical treatment on his own and requested that he be given a new authorized physician. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court concluded that the employee failed to identify a legal basis that would justify changing his authorized physician and that, as a result, he did not prove he is likely to prevail at trial on his claim for additional medical benefits. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week struck down a Nashville ordinance that denied certain new building permits unless property owners installed a sidewalk or paid into a fund used to build sidewalks elsewhere. The court ruled that the policy was an unconstitutional taking. The court found that so-called legislative exactions are not regulatory takings and are subject to the same degree of constitutional scrutiny any time a government takes property that would ordinarily require compensation. How the ruling will impact those who already paid the fee is unclear. The Metro Law Department said it was “still digesting” the ruling. Read more in the Tennessean or access the opinion.