TBA YLD President-elect Alex Mcveagh was sworn in as Hamilton County's newest circuit court judge earlier this month. TBA YLD Executive Committee Board member Judge Zachary Walden was present for the investiture ceremony. Click here to view the ceremony, which took place at the Historic Hamilton County Courthouse. See the full photo from the event.

In this TBJ Select exclusive, Don Vowell takes readers back to Martin, Tennessee, in the early 1900s and a case that went all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Frances Copass was fired from her teaching position at Hall Moody Institute for, officially, breach of contract. The court was confronted by what it called the most difficult and delicate question that had ever been presented for its consideration: what is excessive indulgence in social functions and recreations?

Jennifer Safstrom presented on inclusive language at TALS Equal Justice University. Her presentations shared inclusive language principles to guide lawyers in choosing the most appropriate words to engender respect, amplify understanding and enhance communication. Safstrom is an assistant clinical professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School's First Amendment Clinic and the chair of the TBA YLD's Diversity Committee.

TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr. addressed attendees at the 2024 Equal Justice University conference in Murfreesboro today. He thanked those working in the access to justice field and said the TBA is proud to be part of a collaborative effort to provide quality and accessible legal services across the state. He highlighted the TBA’s Grassroots Initiative and encouraged attendees to get involved in policy advocacy efforts. He also recapped the efforts of the Administrative Office of the Courts and Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Holly Kirby during the last legislative session, which led to an $8.6 million increase in indigent funding, while reiterating that securing additional funding remains a top priority for the association. Additionally, Lanquist called for an increased commitment to pro bono work, increased outreach to law students and new ways to use technology to assist indigent clients and self-represented litigants. Finally, he pledged the TBA would continue to work with policy makers to explore, implement and evaluate new approaches to serving those who cannot afford legal representation. Watch Lanquist’s remarks on the TBA’s Facebook feed and look for a wrap up of the event and the many awards presented at the conference in tomorrow's issue of TBA Today. See photos from the day.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. When the COVID-19 virus struck a nursing home in March 2020, the owner, Metro Man IV, LLC, facing staff shortages, took emergency measures to keep its residents safe. Namely, it implemented temporary hazard pay and hired non-certified nursing aides. The National Labor Relations Board determined that the exigent circumstances presented by COVID excused Metro Man from its initial obligations to bargain with SEIU Healthcare Michigan (the Union). However, the Board determined that Metro Man failed to bargain with the Union regarding the effects of its unilateral decisions and the decisions themselves when the emergency receded. For the reasons that follow, we grant in part and deny in part the Board’s petition to enforce its order.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Michael Harvel, a county official, sexually assaulted many women that he supervised. A jury convicted him of infringing the constitutional rights of seven victims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. On appeal, Harvel raises timeliness, indictment, and evidentiary challenges. Two of his arguments deserve mention at the outset. Federal law sets a five-year statute of limitations for most crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Yet it permits the government to charge crimes “punishable by death” at any time. See id. § 3281. Harvel contends that the government did not bring the most serious charges in this case (which involved kidnapping and sexual abuse) within § 3282’s five-year statute of limitations. He is mistaken. These counts were not subject to this limitations period because they were “punishable by death” under § 3281. Admittedly, the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence might bar the death penalty for kidnapping or rape crimes. But we hold that the phrase “punishable by death” in § 3281 looks to the penalty provisions in the charged offense (here, § 242), not to these constitutional standards.

Alexander Vance, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief after this Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. See State v. Vance, 596 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2020). On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial despite several alleged areas of deficient performance. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Juvenile Court for Jefferson County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminated the parental rights of Meliah B. (“Mother”) to her children, Tucker R., Gracelynn R., and Roland R. (“the Children”). Mother has appealed, challenging only the Juvenile Court’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the discovery rule. Dr. Jason C. Eck, D.O. (“Defendant”) performed spinal surgery on Keetly Marc (“Plaintiff”). On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, who then was representing Plaintiff only in a workers’ compensation case, received information through discovery reflecting that Plaintiff’s surgery was performed at the wrong level. Counsel reviewed the material on November 30, 2020, and informed Plaintiff by December 4, 2020. On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations. The Trial Court granted summary judgment to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We hold that Plaintiff cannot be charged with constructive notice based on her attorney’s November 10, 2020, receipt of the relevant information because counsel was then representing Plaintiff only in a workers’ compensation case, and a potential health care liability claim was beyond the scope of her representation. Thus, the knowledge obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel on November 10, 2020, may not be imputed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was made aware of the relevant information at some point from November 30, 2020, through December 4, 2020, meaning her lawsuit against Defendant was timely filed. We reverse the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for this case to proceed.