The Defendant, Andrew Steven Bryant, appeals from the Jefferson County Circuit Court's probation revocation of his four-year sentence for reckless homicide. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for the trial court to make findings regarding the Defendant's probation violation and the appropriate consequence for the violation.

The Defendant, Michael Malik Tashaw Brown, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of filing a false police report, possession of marijuana, and leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence about a shotgun found in his vehicle, and that the State failed to establish that he possessed illegal marijuana rather than legal hemp. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff concedes that the order in the previous action filed in circuit court satisfied the first three of the four elements of the doctrine of res judicata but denied that the prior action had been adjudicated on the merits. As for the fourth element, the chancery court ruled that the judgment in the circuit court action constituted an adjudication on the merits because the dismissal was “with prejudice. ” On this basis the chancery court dismissed the action at bar. The plaintiff appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Mother appeals the trial court’s findings that (1) termination of Mother’s parental rights is supported by the grounds of persistence of conditions, mental incompetence, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This interlocutory recusal appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal filed by the plaintiffs in the underlying action. The plaintiffs timely filed their petition for recusal appeal in this Court pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Upon thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion for recusal. We deny as moot the plaintiffs’ request for a stay.

This appeal arises from a long-standing conservatorship, which was created in 1981. The primary issues pertain to the fees the conservator is entitled to receive for the various services she renders in administering the estate of the conservatorship and services the conservator renders as one of the caretakers for the ward, Patricia L. Capelli (hereinafter “Ms. Capelli”). Following an evidentiary hearing on the conservator’s fee applications for services rendered, the trial court bifurcated the conservator’s rate of compensation for caregiving as distinguished from management of the conservatorship. The court reduced the hourly rate of compensation for caregiving services to $25 per hour while allowing the conservator to be compensated at the rate of $115 per hour for services rendered in the management of the conservatorship, the rate the court had previously authorized for all services. The court also reduced the total hours claimed for both types of services. The court then ruled that, going forward, the conservator’s rate of compensation for any services would be $25 per hour. This appeal followed. We affirm the bifurcation of the rate of compensation for service previously rendered. However, finding this to be a complex conservatorship case, we modify the fee schedule going forward and hold that the conservator shall be paid the previously authorized rate of $115 per hour for services rendered in the management of the conservatorship but affirm the rate of compensation of $25 per hour for caregiving services rendered by the conservator. We also modify the trial court’s decision to disallow blocks of time for the caregiving services billed by the conservator. Further, we find that the conservatorship shall pay the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the conservator in this appeal but not the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Joseph Capelli. We also remand for the court to consider the applicable law and relevant facts regarding the construction of a pool on Ms. Capelli’s property. Thus, we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

This case concerns a dispute between a decedent’s daughter, acting in her capacity as the executrix of her father’s estate, and her father’s paramour. The Chancery Court for Campbell County (“the Trial Court”) found that the father’s paramour, the defendant, had exerted undue influence on him and converted approximately $241,000 from his accounts for her own benefit prior to his death. The defendant appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

A federal appeals court has overturned a judge’s finding of probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for sending accused Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador despite an order to halt the deportations, Bloomberg Law reports. In a 2-1 ruling, U.S. officials will no longer face a contempt investigation or possible prosecution. In April, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington said officials acted in “willful disregard” of his orders to turn around planes carrying Venezuelans. Judge Greg Katsas, writing in support of the appeals court’s decision, said there was ambiguity in Boasberg’s initial order and that the government reasonably believed the ruling applied only to migrants physically leaving the U.S., which had already occurred by the time the order was issued.

A federal judge has struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at the nation's schools and universities. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives, National Public Radio reports. The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions. The ruling follows a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which argued the directives unlawfully expanded a 2023 Supreme Court decision restricting race-conscious decisions in admissions. The Associated Press reports on the initial actions.