The appellants sued the appellee, a law firm, alleging that the law firm committed legal malpractice when it gave the appellants legal advice with regard to the tax implications of a stock sale. The law firm filed two motions for summary judgment arguing that the legal malpractice case was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Both motions were denied when the trial court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found that the legal malpractice case was timely filed but that the law firm had not committed legal malpractice. Upon our diligent review of the record, we affirm.

PER CURIAM. In January 2019, Detective Lori Russ searched Connie Reguli’s private Facebook records allegedly because Russ disliked Reguli’s criticism of the police. Reguli learned of this search a year later when preparing for her criminal trial. She did not sue over the search at that time. Much later, however, Reguli learned that her speech had motivated the search when Russ seemed to admit as much at Reguli’s sentencing in July 2022. That November, Reguli filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against Russ and her employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But Reguli’s § 1983 claim triggered a short one-year statute of limitations under Tennessee law. So the district court dismissed Reguli’s claim as untimely. The court reasoned that this claim had accrued when Reguli learned of Russ’s search—not when she learned of Russ’s motivation for it. We agree and affirm.

Appellant, Raven Cobins, appealed a February 16, 2023 order of the Shelby County Circuit Court. Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). The appeal is dismissed.

This is the second appeal involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two children. In the first appeal, this Court vacated the trial court’s finding that the mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children and that termination was in the children’s best interest. We remanded the case for the trial court to make additional factual findings and conclusions of law. On remand, the trial court entered an amended order with additional findings and conclusions. The mother appeals again. We affirm.

This appeal raises a thorny question about adverse possession. Under that doctrine, a party may gain legal title or a defensive possessory right to real property by maintaining exclusive, actual, adverse, continuous, open, and notorious possession of the property for a certain length of time. At issue here is the adversity requirement. The original plaintiff in this case, Ora Eads, Jr., obtained legal title to a commercial property near downtown Nashville years ago but did not register the deed. About two decades later, the individual who sold the property to Mr. Eads defaulted on a loan, and his creditor obtained a judgment lien against the property, which was eventually sold to enforce the lien. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Eads adversely possessed the property during the intervening years. Defendant, the subsequent purchaser of the property, disagrees and argues that Mr. Eads’s possession was not adverse. We agree with defendant. Adversity, for purposes of both common-law and statutory adverse possession, requires either a conflict of title or a controversy about the right to possess the property. Because neither existed here for the requisite time period, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary decision and reinstate the chancery court’s judgment in favor of defendant.

U.S. District Judge Annemarie Axon in Alabama upheld new anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students, rejecting arguments from Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina that regulations from President Joe Biden’s administration overstep legal boundaries. Axon ruled that these regulations, which extend Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation, were reasonable and aligned with the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision. The ruling allows the rules to take effect in the four states on Aug. 1. Reuters reports that a total of 26 Republican-led states have sued over the rules. Six judges have blocked the rules from being enforced in 21 states pending the outcome of underlying lawsuits. Tennessee sued over the regulations in April. That led to an injunction on implementation of the rule, which recently was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The administration last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to set aside lower court decisions.

Madison County officials recently held a meeting to discuss plans for a new juvenile justice complex. According to Mayor AJ Massey, the county plans to negotiate with 10 out of 13 property owners to purchase their land for the complex. A commercial appraiser will determine a fair market value for the properties. The county will use eminent domain if necessary to acquire the remaining land. The new complex aims to provide necessary resources for juvenile offenders and prevent future crime. WBBJ News 7 has more on the plans, including comments from Madison County Juvenile Court Judge Christie Little.

A one-hour webcast on Sept. 11 will help lawyers who have been learning their mediation skills through trial and error. The “Top 10 Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Mistakes Lawyers Make in Mediations” will highlight the mistakes most often made with the goal of developing better mediation preparation and advocacy skills and achieving better results for clients. The webcast will run from 10-11 a.m. CDT. One hour of CLE and CME credit is available.

State Sen. Jon Lundberg has filed a criminal warrant against Bob Harshbarger Sr. — the father of Lundberg's political opponent Bobby Harshbarger and the husband of Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger — accusing him of vandalizing and stealing campaign signs. The alleged incident was captured on video by a Lundberg campaign volunteer. Lundberg claims that numerous campaign signs have been damaged or stolen in recent weeks. The Tellico Village Connection has the story.

A closely watched necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) baby formula trial has culminated in a $495 million judgment against Abbott Laboratories. The suit was the first NEC case brought against Abbott and only the second trial alleging that cow’s milk-based baby formula given to premature infants can cause the life-threatening illness. The suit alleged that despite “scientific consensus” that cow’s milk products can lead to NEC in premature infants, Abbott made no changes to its products, packaging or guidelines, and that the company breached its duty through misrepresentations in its advertising and promotional materials. The suit, brought in Missouri, was handled by Nashville-based Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC and TorHoerman Law, with offices in Illinois and Missouri. Read more in a release from the firm.