The Defendant, David Patrick Lauderdale, was convicted by a jury of domestic assault, interfering with an emergency call, robbery, resisting arrest, felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, violating the financial responsibility law, and driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. On appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the robbery conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Romeaka Evans, Defendant, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for second degree murder. After a jury trial, she was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty- five years in incarceration as a Range I, standard offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied a mistrial, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the trial court imposed an improper sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ray Gene Elliott, III, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of three counts of rape, three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual activity involving a minor, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of thirty years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue the Defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment

A property owner granted a friend permission to live on his property while the friend was renovating the owner’s house. Five years later, the owner filed a successful detainer action against the friend in general sessions court. The friend appealed the adverse judgment to circuit court and, in that forum, filed a counterclaim asserting multiple causes of action including breach of contract and quantum meruit. After a bench trial, the trial court granted the property owner a detainer and dismissed the friend’s counterclaims. We affirm.

This case involves the interpretation of a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”1) in which the father was obligated to establish an irrevocable life insurance trust for his youngest child in an amount equal to the average of the after-tax funds received by his other children from four other trusts. He did not establish the trust before his death in 2021. Before he died, his youngest child sued to force him to create the trust. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the father’s estate and another trust he established, holding that the MDA trust was too vague and indefinite to enforce and that the father’s failure to establish the trust constituted a non-arbitrary disinheritance of the youngest child pursuant to the MDA. This Court, in Dunavant v. The William B. Dunavant, Jr. Revocable Living Trust, No. W2023-01213, 2024 WL 4211156 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2024), affirmed the trial court. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Rule 11 application for the Living Trust and the Estate, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of Pharma Conference Education v. State, 703 S.W.3d 305 (Tenn. 2024).” We reverse the trial court.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed due to significant failures to comply with Rule 10B. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

September 22, 2025 - September 26, 2025.

The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the president's birthright citizenship executive order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional. The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the rulings wrongly confer “the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” while opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the policy violates the Constitution. The case could set up a Supreme Court ruling by early summer.