The Tennessee Supreme Court is seeking public comments on a petition filed by the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA), which would amend Rule 9, section 10.1 to allow bar associations geographically located in the state to receive certain information from the Board of Professional Responsibility. The deadline for submitting written comments is Oct. 13. Comments should reference docket number ADM2025-01205 and be emailed to appellatecourtclerk@tncourts.gov or mailed to Clerk of the Supreme Court James Hivner, RE: Proposed Amendment to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 10.1, 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219-1407. Read the court’s full order.

The Defendant, Kelly Ray Turnbow, appeals from the Carroll County Circuit Court’s probation revocation of his three-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) finding he violated the terms of his probation based on conduct not alleged in the probation violation warrant and (2) failing to articulate its reasoning to support the full revocation of his probation. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for additional findings consistent with this opinion.

Six years after his convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, the Petitioner, Craig Rickard, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the trial court. In that petition, he asserted that the two convictions should have merged under principles of double jeopardy. The trial court summarily denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right from the trial court’s denial of the petition. Accordingly, we respectfully dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Jeremiah Nance, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury for which he was sentenced to three years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing testimony that the police were responding to a domestic call; (2) the trial court erred in not allowing the victim to assert her Fifth Amendment right not to testify; and (3) the trial court committed plain error in allowing the prosecutor to misstate the evidence during closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A buyer signed an agreement with a contractor for the construction of a custom home. After disagreements arose over the construction and its pace, the buyer sued the contractor and its owner seeking damages and to quiet title to the property. The trial court awarded the buyer damages, title to the property, and attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court determined that the Department of Children’s Services failed to meet its burden of proof as to any of the statutory grounds set out in its petition to terminate appellee/mother’s parental rights to the minor child. Although unnecessary in view of its determination that there were no grounds for termination, the trial court undertook a best interest analysis and found that it was not in the child’s best interest to terminate mother’s rights. Because the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings as to either grounds or best interest, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for entry of an order terminating appellee/mother’s parental rights.

This appeal stems from a boundary line dispute. Mr. Jones sold the Smiths two lots within a subdivision in Hardin County. It is undisputed that the Smiths bought Lots 87 and 88 on September 11, 2012. Several years later, Mr. Jones claimed that the Smiths had encroached on “Lot 89.” The Smiths insisted they occupied only the 80 linear feet purchased from Mr. Jones. When the parties were unable to come to a resolution, the Smiths filed suit in chancery court to quiet title to Lots 87 and 88, declare the lot numbers on the survey misnumbered, and prayed for damages for slander of title and attorney’s fees. Mr. Jones filed a counter-complaint to quiet title to “Lot 89,” for ejectment, conversion and/or civil theft, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, defamation, and punitive damages. After a bench trial, the trial court held that “Lot 89” did not exist, granted damages to the Smiths for slander of title, and dismissed Mr. Jones’s counter-complaint. We affirm the trial court’s holding that “Lot 89” does not exist and the dismissal of Mr. Jones’s counter-complaint. We vacate the court’s decision as to slander of title, reverse the grant of attorney’s fees as to damages, and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the minor child: abandonment by failure to visit, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Nashville lawyer Rose Palermo has announced that her son Andrew Cheatham has joined her boutique law firm. With the retirement of her attorney husband Denty Cheatham, the firm has been renamed from Cheatham Palermo & Garrett to Cheatham & Palermo. Andrew Cheatham will focus his legal work on international and family law issues. He is based in Washington, D.C. and primarily assists clients there and New York. He also will continue his solo practice in the nation’s capital. Palermo will continue to work in Nashville. She and her husband launched the firm in 1973. Read more about the firm’s transition in the Nashville Post.

In this dispute between neighboring property owners, the trial court determined that a concrete fence built by one neighbor violated a setback ordinance and entered an injunction requiring the neighbor to remove the fence. We have determined that the trial court erred in so ruling and reverse that portion of the trial court’s decision.