Members of the newly appointed 2026-2027 Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Board met in Nashville to plan for the upcoming bar year. The group also got to know one another better with a dinner at Ole Red and a wellness walk on Saturday planned by Health & Wellness Coordinator Chris Kelley. Later that day, the board conducted a Tennessee Free Legal Answers Clinic, continuing its commitment to being the "service arm of the bar." Working together, they answered 18 questions.

President-elect Jennifer Sneed-Perry, who will be sworn in as YLD president at the TBA Convention in June, provided an overview of the upcoming bar year as well as the expectations for all board members. She also introduced two initiatives for her year in office: increased law school engagement with the addition of six law student liaisons to the YLD Board and a focus on increasing education for attorneys and the public about estate planning, guardianships and conservatorships. The board also elected Andrea Morgan Hancock of Clinton as the District 2 representative. Mock Trial Chair Bridget Pyman was presented with the disco gavel for being the most enthusiastic participant at the meeting. Judge Zack Walden also was recognized with a disco gavel for his lively game of Traitors. See photos from the event.

The YLD has district representative openings in Districts 10 and 12. YLD members interested in serving in these roles should send a letter of interest and resume to llabenberg@tnbar.org.

DraftKings and FanDuel are the latest apps to be sued by consumers who say the platforms are deliberately designed to addict users, Bloomberg Law reports. Like the landmark social media addiction verdict against Meta and Google, three recent lawsuits against the sports betting apps point to features like push notifications, personalized algorithms and targeted advertising. The apps are accused of making sports betting more dangerous because they do not have the same barriers that inherently restrict in-person wagers.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Class-action suits brought against automobile insurers in many courts from around the country have asked the same question. Suppose an insurer promises to pay the “actual cash value” of an insured’s vehicle if the vehicle gets destroyed in an accident. Suppose further that the insurer uses the same formula to calculate actual cash value. If car owners believe that this general formula includes an improper reduction, may they pursue a class action? Five circuit courts have now said “no” because individual issues about the unique value of each used car will dominate all other matters. See Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 154 F.4th 1107, 1110–13 (9th Cir. 2025); Freeman v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 149 F.4th 461, 468–71 (4th Cir. 2025); Schroeder v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 146 F.4th 567, 576–78 (7th Cir. 2025); Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 142 F.4th 149, 158–61 (3d Cir. 2025); Sampson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 83 F.4th 414, 417, 421–23 (5th Cir. 2023). This case asks the same question. When calculating the “actual cash value” of destroyed vehicles, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company often relies on the advertised prices of comparable used vehicles. It then imposes a “typical negotiation” adjustment that reduces the estimated value of these comparators to account for negotiations that lower their final sales prices. Jessica Clippinger brought a class-action challenge to this typical-negotiation adjustment, claiming that it generally undervalues the comparator vehicles. Even if Clippinger were correct, though, we agree with the other circuit courts that she cannot pursue this theory on a class-wide basis. To determine whether State Farm paid “actual cash value” for the 90,000 used vehicles in the class, a jury would have to consider unique evidence about each vehicle’s value. And this individual valuation will “predominate” over all other questions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). To be sure, the district court tried to avoid the need for case-by-case evidence by holding that it could estimate every class member’s damages using a simple calculation that would refund the amount of the typical-negotiation adjustment. But this proposed solution would wrongly read Rule 23 to eliminate State Farm’s “substantive right” to present unique evidence that it paid fair market value to a specific class member despite its use of the adjustment. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)). We thus reverse the district court’s class-certification order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Wesley Allen Lacey, Defendant, was charged in a presentment by the Knox County Grand Jury with one count of second degree murder and one count of delivery of fentanyl in an amount less than fifteen grams. A jury found Defendant guilty of second degree murder and casual exchange. As a result, he was sentenced to fifteen years to be served at 100% for the second degree murder conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the casual exchange conviction, to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of fifteen years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for second degree murder and the admission of testimony from a medical examiner who did not perform the autopsy of the victim. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Collin Kilpatrick, was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of eight years at 85% release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory information of addresses on file with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (“Board” or “Board of Probation and Parole”); that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the Board’s records that were in the possession of the State, by denying the Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on possession, and by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s discovery violations; and that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In this probate action, the executor of the decedent’s estate alleged that the defendant, who was the decedent’s wife, had exercised undue influence over the decedent. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding that the defendant did not have a confidential relationship with the decedent. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on December 10, 2025. The notice of appeal was electronically filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals on January 14, 2026, more than thirty days from the date of entry of the orders from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

The 114th Tennessee General Assembly wrapped up its second and final session Thursday evening after a marathon 10-hour day, according to various news sources. In the final days of the session, lawmakers approved a range of proposals that now go to the governor for his consideration. Legislation impacting the courts included SB846/HB1268, creating two new criminal court judgeships in Shelby County; HB2251/SB2025, creating a pilot program to place criminal magistrates in the 10 counties with the highest criminal caseload; and HB1707/SB1952, requiring judges in all courts to cooperate with ICE or face removal.

A number of immigration bills passed as well: HB1710/SB1915, requiring service providers to track and report on the status of anyone who seeks public benefits; HB2219/SB2223, requiring all Tennessee sheriffs to participate in some version of the 287(g) immigration enforcement program; and bills impacting drivers license tests (HB1708/SB1889) and commercial driving licenses (HB1817/SB1748).

Finally, new criminal penalties were created for leaving the scene of an accident that results in an injury or one the driver knew or should reasonably have known resulted in death (HB1967/SB1602) and a sweeping ban of all forms of kratom (HB1649/SB1656). Read more about these and other successful measures from the Nashville Banner and the WPLN. Gov. Bill Lee released a statement highlighting accomplishments of the session and thanking legislators for working with him to “deliver real results for people across our state.”

This year’s TBA Convention — taking place June 10-13 Knoxville — will include the first-ever Tech Showcase on Thursday, June 11. Those who register for the convention will get access to all of the showcase elements. TBA also is selling day passes for Thursday to those unable to attend the full convention. The showcase will feature 3.5 hours of legal tech CLE, lunch, choice of Lunch & Learn break out session and access to vendors in the Tech Showcase Exhibit Hall. The day pass includes three CLE programs: Evaluating Your Firm's Technology with Catherine Sanders Reach of the North Carolina Bar; Think Different, Litigate Better with Tara Cheever of Lit Software; and Conscious Lawyering with AI with Emily & Evan Wright of Wright & Wright. Learn more about the CLE programs and all of the convention offerings.

The Tennessee Attorney General’s office has indefinitely delayed a legal challenge to the state’s abortion ban from going to trial as planned. According to the Nashville Banner newsletter, a two-week non-jury trial was supposed to start Monday in Davidson County Chancery Court, the culmination of a legal challenge that began in September 2023. On Tuesday, after receiving a chancellor’s order on a motion for summary judgment, the state filed a Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3 (TRAP 3) appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In response, to save the trial, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for partial remand to the trial court and for expedited consideration, which the appeals court denied. As such, the chancery court removed the trial from the docket.