KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. To get a proposed constitutional amendment on the Ohio ballot, petitioners must submit their amendment, a summary of their amendment, and one thousand qualified supporting signatures to the Ohio Attorney General. The Ohio Attorney General must then determine if the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed amendment and, if so, certify the summary. Only once the Attorney General certifies the summary may petitioners begin collecting the approximately 400,000 signatures necessary to put the proposed amendment on the ballot.

Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) are Ohio voters who, together, seek to amend the Ohio Constitution through a ballot initiative. Pursuant to Ohio law, Plaintiffs drafted their amendment and summary, collected their one thousand qualified supporting signatures, and filed it with the Ohio Attorney General, David Yost. On at least six occasions, Yost declined to certify Plaintiffs’ summary. After Yost’s most recent decision denying certification, Plaintiffs turned to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review. When the state supreme court declined to grant expedited review, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court seeking injunctive relief. In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Yost’s enforcement of Ohio Revised Code § 3519.01 functions as an unconstitutional obstacle to their ballot access and their ability to speak about and advocate for their proposed amendment as they wish, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s order and GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief. We also DENY as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) selected Kandiss Brown as its 2024 CASA Volunteer of the Year. During the four years that Brown has volunteered with CASA of Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County, she has won praise as a dedicated volunteer who never hesitates to take on a new case, regardless of its level of complexity. "Mrs. Brown conducts each investigation in a professional manner without letting emotions overcome her judgement," CASA Executive Director Michelle Childs said in her nomination of Brown. The CASA Volunteer of the Year Award was presented at the YLD Board’s annual dinner on June 14 in Memphis as part of the TBA’s Annual Convention. Read more in the TBA's press release.

The TBA Young Lawyers Division (YLD) has selected Kandiss Brown as its 2024 CASA Volunteer of the Year. During the four years that Brown has volunteered with CASA of Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County, she has won praise as a dedicated volunteer who never hesitates to take on a new case, regardless of its level of complexity. "Mrs. Brown conducts each investigation in a professional manner without letting emotions overcome her judgement," CASA Executive Director Michelle Childs said in her nomination of Brown. The CASA Volunteer of the Year Award will be presented at the YLD Board’s annual dinner on June 14 in Memphis as part of the TBA’s Annual Convention. Read more in the TBA's press release.

Two former Erlanger Hospital executives, Chief Compliance Officer Alana Sullivan and Chief Financial Officer Britt Tabor, in April 2021 filed a lawsuit against Erlanger, which recently was unsealed. The suit claims that the Chattanooga-based hospital is paying physicians well above their fair market value in exchange for referring patients, according to News Channel 9. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says it will intervene in the suit with regard to claims that the hospital violated the Stark Law, a federal anti-kickback statute that also prevents giving favored treatment to physicians.

Upon competing motions for declaratory judgment in this action involving an oil and gas lease, the trial court granted declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, who owned the mineral rights to the real property on which the oil well was located. The court found that although the oil well had been in production as required by the lease, the defendant corporation had failed to comply with the lease’s requirement that it make at least one oil sale within a one-year period. The court thereby found that the lease had terminated pursuant to its own terms. The defendant has appealed, and the plaintiff has raised an issue regarding the trial court’s finding that the well was in production as required by the lease. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

A widow received pension benefits that were payable only to her as a surviving spouse. A trust company representing the decedent’s estate filed suit against the widow arguing that she breached the antenuptial agreement between her and the decedent that required her to disclaim any right she had in the decedent’s separate property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the widow after concluding that the antenuptial agreement contained an exception that allowed the widow to retain pension benefits that were payable only to her as surviving spouse. The trust company appealed. Because the antenuptial agreement is ambiguous, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this case, Mother appeals the trial court’s severe abuse finding, after one of her children was killed in a car accident while she was driving. The trial court found that Mother failed to protect her children when she failed to ensure that the children were properly restrained in the automobile. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The Circuit Court for Montgomery County sentenced the Defendant, Gustavio Rousseau, as a Range I offender to twenty-four years at thirty percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction following his guilty-pleaded conviction for attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to one year less than the maximum sentence in the applicable range. The Defendant specifically argues that the trial court erred in applying the enhancement factor of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114(2), finding that the Defendant was a leader in the commission of an offense involving two or more criminal actors. The Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in not giving due consideration to sentencing principles since the Defendant had accepted responsibility in entering an open plea and had no prior felonies. The State contends that the Defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion because the Defendant did not overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded to the trial court’s sentencing decision. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Richard Rand, Jr., was convicted of the possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced him to a term of four years on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant violated the terms of his probation by absconding from supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked his suspended sentence in full and ordered the original sentence into execution. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his conduct amounted only to a technical failure to report rather than an absconsion. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Marshall County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeffrey Neal Olive, of second degree murder, and he was sentenced to a term of twenty years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was denied his rights to a fair trial and due process of law. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appealed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to thoroughly investigate the case and potential defenses; (2) failing to discuss with the Petitioner his right to testify and allow him to testify at trial; (3) failing to challenge various pieces of evidence; and (4) encouraging the jury to convict the Petitioner of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter instead of the charged offense of second degree murder. The Petitioner also alleges that his rights to a fair trial and due process of law were violated in the taking of a pretrial statement and the faulty preservation of evidence. Finally, the Petitioner argues that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants post-conviction relief. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.