One of the most difficult parts of practicing law in Tennessee is trying to advise clients what a potential sentence would be after trial. In this issue's Crime & Punishment column, Wade Davies breaks down the various factors that could be applied in calculating sentencing.

100 years after the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Russell Fowler looks back on Tennessee's most famous legal battle. It all started in the local drug store as a way to challenge the constitutionality of the Butler Act, Tennessee’s new law against teaching the theory of human evolution.

The Journal’s “back page” content looks a little different in 2025! Introducing “Closing Statements.” We’ll post a question here in each issue and invite you to submit your answer. Perhaps you’ll see your closing statement in the next issue! For this issue, we asked "If you weren't a lawyer, what would be your career?"

This issue's "The Legal Life" feature recaps the TBA's Annual Convention held in Franklin June 11-14. Knoxville lawyer Heidi Barcus was sworn in as TBA's 144th president, taking the gavel from Memphis lawyer Ed Lanquist Jr. Read more about award winners honored, your new Board of Governors and updates from the Young Lawyers Division.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Contracts often contain forum-selection clauses so that parties may litigate any eventual dispute in the most efficient venue and obtain certainty over that location. Yet this case shows that forum-selection clauses can disserve these efficiency and predictability goals if the parties do not sign clear agreements that unambiguously identify when the clauses apply. The plaintiff in this case agreed to ship a car part that it made in Mexico to a Mexican plant that the defendants operated. Their initial contract documents contained a forum- selection clause pointing to a Mexican venue. So when the plaintiff sued in Michigan, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the forum non conveniens doctrine. The district court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and did not undertake any forum non conveniens analysis. But the complaint plausibly alleges that the parties switched to a Michigan forum-selection clause during the course of their transactions. A factual dispute thus exists over which of these competing clauses applies to the plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claims. And we cannot resolve this venue issue on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) or under the forum non conveniens doctrine without factual findings. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The Petitioner, Henry T. Johnson, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Petitioner contends he raised cognizable claims for habeas corpus relief and asserts his judgment of conviction of first degree murder is void because (1) the trial court failed to pronounce judgment or sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-20-101(a); (2) the original judgment was not signed by the trial judge; and (3) the trial judge was without jurisdiction to enter a corrected judgment because the original judgment had already become final. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the minor child and that termination of parental rights would be in the child’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a post-divorce civil contempt action stemming from a divorce that was finalized in 2014. At the hearing on the contempt petition in February 2024, the husband moved the trial court to dismiss the petition because the parties’ marital dissolution agreement was not in the record. The trial court granted this motion but later, upon motion by the wife, set aside the 2014 final decree pursuant to Rule 60.01. The trial court re-entered the final decree, nunc pro tunc, with the marital dissolution agreement attached. From this order, the husband timely appeals to this Court. We reverse.

In the Circuit Court for Washington County (“the Trial Court”), Gayla Henry filed a motion to vacate two 2019 judgments entered by the General Sessions Court for Washington County (“the General Sessions Court”) in favor of Jesse Street and Property Listing and Rental Agency (“Property Listing”) and to re-open a case dismissed by the Trial Court in 2020. She named Mr. Street; Property Listing; Robert Stacy, sole proprietor of Property Listing; and Kristi Shepard, a real estate agent employed by Property Listing (“Defendants”) as defendants in her motion. She alleged that the 2019 judgments had been procured through fraud by opposing counsel. The Trial Court denied the motion to vacate. Ms. Henry appeals. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and grant Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal.

A husband and wife disputed the value of the husband’s business for purposes of equitably dividing the marital estate in their divorce. The trial court adopted a value proposed by the wife’s expert. Because we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, we affirm.