Gov. Bill Lee has announced that his seventh State of the State Address will take place on Feb. 10 at 6 p.m. CST. The speech will be presented in the House Chamber of the Tennessee State Capitol. In the announcement, Gov. Lee emphasized Tennessee's role as a leader in opportunity, security and freedom, and expressed his commitment to innovation for the state's future. He also indicated that he would share his budget and legislative priorities for the year during the address. The address will be live streamed on the governor’s Facebook and YouTube channels.

Retired University of Tennessee (UT) law professor Fred Le Clercq died Jan. 12 at age 88. Le Clercq earned a master's degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and received his law degree from Duke University School of Law. He was briefly employed by his father-in-law, Ben Scott Whaley, at the Barnwell Whaley Law Firm in Charleston, South Carolina. Le Clercq was hired by the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1970. He began at the UT Legal Clinic and soon became a law professor, a position he held until 1996, educating an entire generation of Tennessee lawyers. His favorite courses were constitutional law and civil procedure and he was known as an outspoken supporter of the civil rights movement. A memorial service was held Saturday at St. Philip's Cathedral in Charleston.

At its January meeting this past weekend, the TBA Board of Governors certified election filing results. One contested election will be held this year for the office of vice president. Nashville attorneys Amy Bryant and John Farringer are both running to become TBA’s president in 2027-2028. TBA members will receive an email tomorrow with more information about the candidates. Electronic voting will begin on Jan. 31 and close on Feb. 14. Watch for an email with a link to the ballot from Intelliscan Inc.

The board also declared election results for uncontested seats with seven individuals deemed to be elected because they were the only duly qualified candidate for that seat. Finally, the board declared a vacancy in the three positions: Fourth District Governor, East Tennessee Governor and young lawyer delegate to the ABA House of Delegates (position 3). To be considered for any of these positions, email TBA Executive Director Sheree Wright at barED@tnbar.org with a statement of interest and resume by March 3. The board will consider nominees at its March 20 meeting.

For positions in the TBA House of Delegates, the House met on Jan. 17 to declare the election of 25 uncontested delegates. They will take office on June 11. It also declared a vacancy in 13 seats. To be considered for any of these positions, email TBA Executive Director Sheree Wright at barED@tnbar.org no later than March 3. See the full list of certified candidates and all available vacancies on the TBA website.

Question 1: Can a property tax assessor correct an erroneous classification of taxed property?

Opinion 1: Yes. The assessor must correct classification errors, and the trustee or municipal collector must collect additional taxes, if necessary, based on timely corrections.

Question 2: If a classification error results from the assessor’s lack of an up-to-date certificate of occupancy, can the assessor initiate a correction upon receipt of such an up-to-date certificate?

Opinion 2: Yes. The assessor must initiate the correction and prorate the assessment appropriately.

Question 3: If the correction of an error in a property’s square footage increases the property’s assessed value, can additional taxes be collected on account of that increase in value?

Opinion 3: Yes. If the assessor timely corrects an error, the trustee must collect taxes accordingly.

Question: Does a resolution passed by the Shelby County Board of Commissioners requiring “Culturally-Competent Community Engagement” for the approval of tax increment financing violate the equal protection guarantees of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions?

Opinion: If the Shelby County Board of Commissioners considers race in the tax-increment- financing process, it would likely violate equal protection.

Question: Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-1-128(c) requires the Tennessee Department of Health to identify high-risk prescribers of controlled substances. Once identified by the Department, Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-l-128(c)(3) requires the Department to forward the prescriber’s information to the appropriate licensing board. The statute states that the licensing board “shall notify the prescriber” of his or her high-risk status and “as applicable, require the prescriber to” undertake a series of remedial steps defined in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-1-128(c)(3)(A)–(D). Are those remedial steps optional or required?

Opinion: The remedial steps set out in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-1-128(c)(3)(A)–(D) are required, if relevant to the prescriber’s practice. They are not optional.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. On January 23, 2021, Timothy Davis inadvertently shot himself in the leg with his Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry pistol (“P320”) while he was getting out of his truck. Davis claims that the pistol was fully holstered at the time of the shooting and that he did not pull the trigger. According to Davis, the P320 is defectively designed because it is unreasonably likely to fire inadvertently, reasonable alternative designs exist that could make the P320 safer for consumers, and those alternative designs would have prevented his injury. Accordingly, he brought a products-liability action under Kentucky law, sounding in strict liability and negligence, against Sig Sauer, the manufacturer of the P320. Following discovery, the district court granted Sig Sauer’s motions to exclude Davis’s expert witnesses—firearms expert, James Tertin, and human factors expert, Dr. William J. Vigilante, Jr.—and Sig Sauer’s motion for summary judgment. The district court found that neither expert could opine on whether any alleged defect in the P320 caused Davis’s injury because neither expert investigated the exact factual circumstances of the shooting incident. Without expert testimony, the district court held that Davis could not pursue a products-liability action under Kentucky law. Davis has appealed this judgment. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART. Although the district court correctly excluded Davis’s experts from testifying about what exactly caused Davis’s P320 to fire inadvertently, the experts’ opinions were otherwise admissible to prove other elements of Davis’s claims—specifically that the P320 is defectively designed and that reasonable alternative designs exist. Because we reverse the district court’s decision to exclude completely the expert witnesses, we also hold that Davis has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the P320 was defectively designed and caused his injury. We therefore VACATE the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In 2005, a group of men shot brothers Kirk and Kent Clouatre, and Kirk’s wife, Melissa, at Kent’s auto-repair shop. Kirk died; Kent and Melissa survived. Kent identified one of the shooters as Thomas Clardy. Clardy was charged with murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. At trial in state court, Kent’s identification of Clardy was the primary evidence connecting Clardy to the shooting. Clardy’s counsel highlighted the problems with that identification, but she did not call an expert on eyewitness identification because she could not find one willing to work for what Clardy could afford or what she understood the state would pay. Clardy was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed. Clardy then filed a petition for post conviction review in state court where he argued, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an eyewitness expert. The state trial court denied that petition and the court of appeals affirmed. The state courts did not decide whether Clardy’s counsel had performed deficiently but concluded that Clardy had suffered no prejudice. Clardy then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court granted the writ on the eyewitness-expert claim, concluding that counsel had performed deficiently and that the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in concluding that Clardy was not prejudiced. We REVERSE and REMAND because counsel’s performance was not deficient.

The Defendant, Clyde E. Willis, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of trafficking for a commercial sex act from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor, a Class B felony; patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor, a Class A misdemeanor; and solicitation of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-309(a)(3) (Supp. 2019) (subsequently amended) (trafficking for a commercial sex act from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor), 39-13-514(a)(2) (Supp. 2019) (subsequently amended) (patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer), 39-13-528(a)(7) (2018) (solicitation of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to commit statutory rape). The trial court merged the patronizing prostitution conviction with the trafficking conviction and sentenced the Defendant to an effective nine-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of trafficking for a commercial sex act and that his convictions for patronizing prosecution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor and for solicitation for a commercial sex act from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor violate double jeopardy and must be merged. Because we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the trafficking conviction, we vacate the conviction, reverse the judgment, and dismiss the charge. We affirm the Defendant’s remaining convictions, and we remand for completion of sentencing for the patronizing prostitution conviction and entry of an amended judgment.

Petitioner, Guary Wallace, appeals the post-conviction court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated assault and his effective 100-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments at trial and that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments. Because Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.