Homeowners removed underground storage tanks found on their property. After finding evidence of petroleum contamination where the tanks had been located, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation began an extensive cleanup process. The Department subsequently issued a cost-recovery order against the homeowners to recoup its expenditures. The homeowners petitioned for review of the cost-recovery order to the Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, which upheld the order. The homeowners appealed this initial ruling to the Board and the order was again upheld. The homeowners then appealed the Board’s final ruling to the trial court, which reversed the Board’s judgment. The Department and the Board now appeal. Because we determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the matter for transfer to the proper court.

A mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her four minor children. The trial court held that the evidence presented supported termination of the mother’s rights based on the statutory ground of severe child abuse. The court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

After two sets of relatives filed competing petitions for the appointment of a conservator over the respondent, the parties entered into an agreed order and settlement agreement that provided that the respondent was not in need of conservator, but that the parties had certain obligations that were subject to review by the court and guardian ad litem going forward. Months later, appellants filed a petition to set aside the agreed order on the basis that appellees had not complied with its terms; appellees responded with a motion to dismiss appellants’ petition on the basis that they had not alleged proper grounds to set aside the parties’ agreement. After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order stating that “[a]ll outstanding orders should be set aside and all petitions and the case dismissed” without explanation. Because we cannot review the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without an adequate explanation, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee reported suffering a work-related injury when a swinging door struck her left foot. Video evidence and statements of co-workers indicated that the employee sat down and removed her shoe after the alleged incident, then attempted to take a few steps before being assisted out of the store. The employer denied the claim due to purported inconsistencies between the employee’s description of the incident and videos from in-store cameras. Later, in its discovery responses, the employer asserted that the incident either did not occur or, if it did occur, it did not arise out of or in the course and scope of the employment. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide the employee a panel of physicians, and the employer appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

This week's installment of TBA's Indigent Representation Primer is now available. The new post explores how the increasing strain on our appointed counsel system has ripple effects across the legal and broader community. The crisis in indigent representation is not just a problem for criminal defendants; the entire legal system is impacted by delayed trials, overburdened courts and disrupted proceedings that can stem from a shortage of appointed counsel. The consequences of delays and disruptions extend beyond the courtroom, affecting victims and their families, the families of defendants, children caught in the system, and the larger community. These challenges highlight the urgent need to address the issues with the system, including more resources for the lawyers in this crucial role. Read all past primer posts.

A Texas judge ruled Thursday that three states can move forward with another attempt to roll back federal rules and limit access to the abortion drug mifepristone. Action News 5 reports that Idaho, Kansas and Missouri requested last year to pursue the case in federal court in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling finding that abortion opponents who initially filed the case lacked legal standing to sue. The states seek to have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone, limit its use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy instead of the current 10 weeks and require three in-person doctor visits to obtain the drug instead of none. Nationwide, 13 states ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, while four more prohibit the procedure after the first six weeks.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has announced a settlement with BlackRock Inc. resolving allegations that the global investment firm misled consumers about the role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in its investment practices. The settlement concludes a lawsuit filed by the state of Tennessee in 2023 under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. According to a press release, BlackRock must increase its disclosure, implement compliance measures, ensure communications with investors are consistent and commit to casting shareholder votes solely in the financial interests of investors. As part of the settlement, Tennessee will dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, reserving the right to refile if BlackRock fails to substantially comply.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law requiring TikTok’s China-based parent company to divest from the app, setting up a ban to take effect Sunday. The justices sided with the Biden administration, ruling the divest-or-ban law does not violate the First Amendment, The Hill reports. President-elect Donald Trump had previously urged the justices to delay the deadline so he could negotiate a deal, but the court declined. The Biden administration does not plan to enforce the law before the inauguration, leaving the decision to Trump and seemingly allowing the app to stay online for now. The court was unanimous in its judgment, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed separate concurrences. TikTok has argued divestment is not feasible and that it will “go dark” starting Sunday.

The U.S. Department of Justice is rescinding its protocol that allowed single-drug lethal injections for federal executions. The Tennessean reports the decision to not use pentobarbital, a sedative that is notoriously difficult for governments to source, comes after a department review raised concerns about the potential for "unnecessary pain and suffering." The decision was communicated in a letter from the attorney general to the director of the federal Bureau of Prisons. Last month, Tennessee decided to resume executions using solely pentobarbital, after a yearslong pause related to the combination of drugs used before. The pause on federal executions remains in place while the U.S. Department of Justice evaluates other manners of execution.

Longtime Knoxville criminal defense attorney Wade Davies has opened The Davies Law Firm. He is joined by associate attorney Georgia Miller and paralegal Meghan Franklin. The firm will focus on federal and state criminal defense, white collar investigations and defense, and BPR matters. Their office is located at 800 S Gay St #700, Knoxville 37929 and can be reached at (865) 686-6333 or online at wadedavies.law. Davies is a member of the Tennessee Bar Journal editorial board and the criminal law columnist for Journal.