The University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law will host the eighth annual Strategic Code Enforcement Management Academy (SCEMA) this Wednesday through Friday. The two-day SCEMA program focuses local teams of government managers, attorneys and community partners on the core principles and practices of strategic code enforcement tailored to the priorities and challenges confronting each team's community. This year, a record 11 cities will take part in the law school-hosted academy, with teams from Memphis; St. Louis, Missouri; Dallas, Texas; Rockford, Illinois; Syracuse, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Chandler, Arizona; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Washington, D.C.

Belmont’s College of Law classes 2024 and 2025 received back-to-back 100% pass rates for the fall and spring administration of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, known as the MPRE. Required by the American Bar Association and administered three times a year by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the MPRE measures a candidate’s knowledge and understanding of established standards related to the professional conduct of lawyers. The exam covers a variety of topics including conflicts of interest, how to handle clients’ money, keeping a client’s confidence and other subjects meant to indicate an individual’s knowledge of rules that govern the profession. Read more in a release from the law school.

A Meigs County woman has filed a federal lawsuit against Judge Casey Stokes, Sheriff Jackie Melton, Probation Officer Carol Petitt and Deputy Ben Christian, reports Chattanoogan.com. The complaint alleges that Stokes saw the woman, Hannah Ashbrook, in the hallway of the Meigs County Courthouse and ordered a drug test without probable cause. Ashbrook's suit says she was taken into a bathroom and given 30 seconds to give a urine sample and the sample was then tossed. According to the complaint, Stokes then entered a judgment that she be held in the jail for 10 days for "contempt" and denied her the right to counsel.

Defendant, Rickey Na’Tarius Porter, appeals the consecutive six-year sentences he received after pleading guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Because the trial court improperly sentenced Defendant to the maximum sentence in the range on each offense as an especially mitigated offender, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for resentencing.

A homeowner’s association sought to enforce a recorded declaration of restrictive covenants against a property owner in a subdivision. The property owner moved to dismiss on the basis that the declaration did not appear in her chain of title and did not expressly apply to her property. The HOA contended that language in the property owner’s chain of title was sufficient to make the property subject to the restrictive covenants. And if not, the restrictive covenants were enforceable as equitable servitudes. Without notice to the parties, the trial court dismissed the action on an unasserted basis. We reverse.

The Tennessee Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (DIDD) on May 6 sent a letter to guardians and families of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who live in state-run homes. The letter informed them that the homes would be decommissioned for adults and repurposed to house children in custody of the Department of Children's Services (DCS). “They are using the plight of young people in DCS custody to encourage the conservators and families to get these people to move,” said Zoe Jamail, policy director for Disability Rights Tennessee, which has written its own letter to the families saying they are under no obligation to move their loved ones out of the homes. DIDD officials said in a statement last week that “no one is being evicted from their homes and we have stated that in conversations with family members.” The Tennessee Lookout has the story.

The Petitioners seek accelerated interlocutory review of an order denying their motion to recuse. However, because the Petitioners’ filings fail to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.

This appeal involves the termination of parental rights of a mother. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that five grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. On appeal, DCS maintains that four grounds for termination were sufficiently proven against the mother. We vacate one ground due to insufficient findings by the trial court. We conclude that the three other remaining grounds for termination were sufficiently proven, but due to insufficient findings in the termination order, we vacate the court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child and remand for the court to consider all of the relevant best interest factors and detail its findings. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The plaintiff, a founding member of a law firm, filed this action against other members. The trial court found that the defendant members violated their duty of good faith and fair dealing, breached their contract with the plaintiff, violated their fiduciary duty toward the plaintiff, engaged in a conspiracy, and committed conversion. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Terrance Reece, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for four counts of weapons violations, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of vandalism and his effective twenty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel’s multiple instances of deficient performance. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for a new trial.