A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Gregory Livingston, of first degree premeditated murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction; (2) the admission of the autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying forensic examiner and testimony from a medical examiner who did not conduct the autopsy; (3) the admission of a video recording from a police officer’s body camera showing the victim’s girlfriend crying following the shooting; and (4) the admission of Defendant’s statement that he previously killed others. Upon review, we affirm.

The petitioner, Paul Hayes, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“the Board”). Following a hearing, the Board denied parole to inmate Darryl Whisnant (“Whisnant”). The Board said that, going forward, Whisnant should complete his programming as recommended by his Strong R Assessment, namely by continuing his positive behavior, remaining drug free, and taking a few minutes each day for positive reflection. Whisnant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court upheld the Board’s decision. Whisnant appeals. According to Whisnant, the Board violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B) by failing to state in writing how he could improve his chances of being released on parole. Whisnant argues that his recommended tasks were open-ended and impossible to complete. We find, as did the Trial Court, that the tasks given to Whisnant clearly were meant to be complied with up to his next parole hearing, at which time the Board can consider Whisnant’s compliance or non-compliance as part of its decision-making. The recommended tasks are neither open-ended nor impossible to complete. We hold that the Board complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2)(B). We affirm.

This action involves the dismissal of an appeal from the juvenile court regarding the custody of a minor child. We now affirm the dismissal of the appeal.

Mother appeals the trial court’s decision terminating her parental rights. She challenges the termination ground, which is severe child abuse, as well as the best interest determination. We have concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports both of these rulings by the trial court and, therefore, we affirm.

This matter is a petition for recusal of the trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The inadequacies of the petition require this Court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the recusal motion.

The plaintiff sued a third party in North Carolina. During that litigation, the plaintiff learned that a Tennessee business might have information relevant to the lawsuit, so the plaintiff obtained a subpoena in North Carolina and, under the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, received a corresponding subpoena from the Circuit Court Clerk for Knox County, Tennessee. After serving the subpoena on an agent for the defendant, the plaintiff heard no response. He then brought a petition to enforce the subpoena against the company and its agent. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for Rule 11 sanctions, which the trial court granted. Because we find that the trial court did not adequately explain its decisions to dismiss the petition, grant attorney’s fees, and order Rule 11 sanctions so as to allow for meaningful appellate review, we vacate the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

A mother and a father challenge the juvenile court’s finding of two grounds for the termination of their parental rights and its finding that termination was in the best interests of the two children. We find that the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings regarding one ground and vacate that ground. We affirm in all other respects.

In this appeal, the employer asserts the trial court’s refusal to hear its dispositive motion until after an expedited hearing had taken place was an abuse of discretion and a violation of its right to procedural due process. The regulations governing dispositive motions specify that such motions must include the date of the hearing in the body of the motion and will not be heard until a scheduling order has been entered. The trial court issued a “Scheduling Order/Order Setting Expedited Hearing, ” which stated that the employer “may file a dispositive motion, but it will not be heard until after the expedited hearing.” The employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is preparing to shut down seven major investigations into alleged housing discrimination and segregation across the South and Midwest, including some in which the agency had already found civil rights violations, The Commercial Appeal reports. In Memphis, the investigation being shuttered centered on claims that the city and Memphis Light, Gas and Water coerced residents of a poor Black neighborhood to sell their homes to make way for a new utility facility. Read the complaint filed by a city resident. HUD says the moves come in response to a  presidential executive order eliminating federal enforcement of “disparate-impact liability." According to a memo from the department, HUD no longer will "interpret environmental impacts as violations of fair housing law absent a showing of intentional discrimination.”