The family of Josselin Corea Escalante, the 16-year-old killed in the Jan. 22 Antioch High School shooting, on June 23 filed a lawsuit in Davidson County Circuit Court against Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) and Metro Nashville Government (Metro). The Nashville Post reports that the lawsuit claims MNPS and Metro failed to protect students from harm and should have taken steps to further create a safe environment, citing negligence by MNPS based on the shooter’s history of violent behavior and the failure of the school’s weapon detection system to identify the firearm used during the shooting. The family is suing for $700,000 in damages, the maximum amount allowed under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act. The Nashville Banner has additional reporting.

Nashville entertainment lawyer Rachel Guttman recently opened Gutt Law PLLC which will focus its practice on the music industry. She is a graduate of Middle Tennessee State University and Tulane University Law School. According to Music Row, Guttman began her career clerking for Judge Dee D. Drell in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana before transitioning into litigation defense and entertainment law in New Orleans. In 2018, she returned to Nashville to focus exclusively on the music and entertainment industry. She is joined by entertainment attorney Victoria Powell, a graduate of Belmont University College of Law, and Morgan Brasfield as head of operations. Gutt Law can be reached at gutt.law.

TBA YLD Past President Quinton Thompson and his wife, Katerra Locke Thompson, have fulfilled a dream by opening up a Just Love Coffee Cafe franchise in Midtown Memphis. The cafe, located at 2041 Madison Ave., features all-day breakfast and lunch. According to an article in Memphis Business Journal, Thompson spent a lot of time in coffee shops while attending law school at Vanderbilt University and studying for the bar. He was looking for the same type of atmosphere in Memphis — a place for people to meet up with friends or work on their laptops at a table, on the patio or in a conference room that is available for small meetings. Just Love Coffee Cafe is a Tennessee-based franchise with a community-based focus, which appealed to the couple. Thompson is a partner at Morgan and Morgan in Memphis and continues to serve on the TBA YLD Board. His wife is a children's book author. While in Memphis, stop by and support their new venture!

We are interested in sharing your news of significant life events, including marriages, birth/adoption announcements, travel and special awards and recognitions. If you have good news to share, please fill out our online form. We can't wait to read all about your news!

LawPay, the leading payment solution trusted by over 115,000 legal professionals, is offering even more ways to simplify your practice’s billing and boost productivity. LawPay now includes new tools for invoicing, time tracking, and contact management, all built into a modern, easy-to-use interface. LawPay is designed to help your firm get paid faster, capture more billable hours, and improve cash flow, allowing you to focus on serving clients and growing your practice. It’s a smarter, more efficient way to manage billing and client information — backed by the security and dependability today’s firms expect. Schedule demo >>

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Lester Martin was a renowned pediatric surgeon at Cincinnati Children’s hospital. He served in World War II, trained a generation of doctors, and made crucial advancements in the medical field before passing away at age 96. There’s no question that Dr. Martin left quite a legacy for his family to be proud of. Unfortunately, though, this case is not about his legacy. Instead, it’s about the material goods he left behind. And those goods have led to a long and protracted family feud. Here, we address two parts of that saga. Did the district court have jurisdiction to hear a dispute about who should get what? And did two of Lester’s grandkids need experts to show they didn’t get what they were owed?

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. In all its many forms, music is a powerful influence. One of music’s great gifts is its knack for soothing the mind. Think of the way listening to your favorite song takes you to a place where, at least temporarily, life’s frustrations are quickly set aside. Music’s perhaps most endearing quality is its ability to unite. Whether it be a song, an artist, or an ensemble, each has its own way of joining those of different backgrounds in a shared passion. See generally Raymond MacDonald, The Social Functions of Music, in Routledge International Handbook of Music Psychology in Education and Community 5–21 (Andrea Creech, Donald A. Hodges & Susan Hallam eds., 2021). In the words of one enduring performer, “music seems to be the common denomination that brings us all together. Music cuts through all boundaries and goes right to the soul.” Id. at 5 (quoting Willie Nelson). Today’s case, however, offers at least one example of how music has the power to divide—even a family: a copyright suit in which heirs to a music composer’s fortune squabble over copyright assignments and associated royalties. Travilyn and Tammy Livingston (mother and daughter) each claim a right to royalties tied to certain songs authored by Jay Livingston (Travilyn’s father and Tammy’s grandfather). Between 1984 and 2000, Jay assigned his copyright interests in several songs to a music publishing company. See 17 U.S.C. § 201(d). In recent years, Travilyn invoked her statutory right to “terminat[e]” those copyright grants. Id. § 203(a). To do so, she filed termination notices with the United States Copyright Office, seeking to undo her father’s assignments to the company and recapture his interests in the copyrights for herself. Travilyn’s daughter Tammy, a beneficiary of her grandfather’s assignments, sued her mother, challenging the terminations. The district court dismissed Tammy’s complaint, holding that it failed to state a claim. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Gabriel Enriques Turcios, was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to serve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. More specifically, he alleged that his trial counsel (1) failed to timely and adequately raise an insanity defense; (2) failed to challenge the aggravating circumstance for sentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(5); and (3) failed to seek suppression of messages exchanged between the Petitioner and the victim. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A number of lawyers have been reinstated after being suspended for administrative violations. Two lawyers have been reinstated after completing required continuing legal education hours (one in 2023 and one in 2024). Two lawyers have been reinstated after paying the annual registration fee to the Board of Professional Responsibility (one in 2010 and one in 2024). One lawyer was reinstated after paying the 2024 professional privilege tax. One lawyer was reinstated after being suspended in 2016 for not paying the inactive fee. And one lawyer was reinstated after being suspended in 2011 for failure to meet IOLTA requirements. The TBA has records of all administrative suspensions and reinstatements going back to 2005. See all lists here.

Brandon Bassett, Defendant, was indicted for and convicted of five counts of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal he argues that the State’s failure to elect an offense in Count 5 resulted in a jury verdict that was not unanimous and requires reversal. Defendant also argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering consecutive sentencing by failing to place findings on the record to show that the overall length of the sentence comported with the purposes and principles of sentencing. Because we determine that the proof at trial necessitated an election on Count 5, we reverse the conviction in Count 5 and remand for a new trial. However, we determine the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty years. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for recusal of the trial judge. After carefully reviewing the limited record provided by the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the motion.