Shelby County Judge James Jones today ruled that the jury in the state trial of three former Memphis police officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols will be brought in from out of town. According to the Daily Memphian, it has not been disclosed where jurors will come from in an effort to prevent tainting the jury pool. The jury will hear the case against Tadarrius Bean, Justin Smith and Demetrius Haley, all of whom face charges, including second-degree murder and kidnapping, in the 2023 death of Nichols. Deputy District Attorney Paul Hagerman said the jury will be selected from somewhere in Tennessee and will include up to 16 members, including alternates. The trial is still scheduled to begin April 28 in Memphis.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. After Faytima Howard failed to pay her property taxes, Macomb County seized and sold her property in 2023. She sued, alleging that the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by keeping proceeds allegedly in excess of her tax debt. There was a time when the Michigan foreclosure regime violated the State and Federal Constitutions. In 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan’s failure to compensate property owners for the gap between their tax debts and the price realized from foreclosure sales of their property violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution. See Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434, 466 (Mich. 2020). Two years later, we held that the same law violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 196 (6th Cir. 2022). Howard faces two problems in relying on those precedents today. One is that the State, in response to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, amended its law in 2020 to permit property owners to obtain any surplus value in their foreclosed properties. The new law corrected the constitutional deficiencies of the old one. The other is that Howard did not take advantage of that process. For these reasons, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Fathiree Ali, a Muslim inmate, asked the Michigan Department of Corrections to serve him only halal food, a special diet required by his religion. After the prison chaplain directed him to apply for the prison’s vegan meal option, another official rejected his application upon learning that he had purchased over one hundred non-halal items from the prison commissary. The district court dismissed Ali’s claim against the Department of Corrections and granted summary judgment to the officers. We dismiss Ali’s appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the rest of the district court’s decision. We dismiss this appeal in part and affirm in part.

Petitioner, Paul Clifford Moore, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Plain Error Review in an Alternative Petition for Extraordinary Writ.” He argues that the trial court’s sequential jury instructions were improper and prevented the jury from returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right under Rule.

A mother and father filed competing petitions to modify their parenting plan. The Father also sought to modify his child support obligation. In furtherance of these goals, he asked the court to admit evidence of events occurring before the denial of his previous petition to modify the parenting plan. He also moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem and for an order requiring his past Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35 examinations to be destroyed. The court denied each of Father’s pretrial requests. It found that no material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the parenting plan was not in the children’s best interests. Because the trial court erred in its application of the child support guidelines, we vacate part of the child support award and remand for recalculation of Father’s obligation. Otherwise, we affirm.

This is a premises liability case. While attending a gathering at the appellees’ apartment, the appellant fell from a second-floor balcony, sustaining multiple injuries. The appellant sued the owner of the apartment and each of the tenants/appellees for negligence. This appeal concerns the tenants/appellees only. The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe the appellant a duty of care because: (1) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and the appellant’s accident was not reasonably foreseeable; (2) the appellees did not have superior control over the apartment such that they could remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (3) in his deposition, the appellant was unable to articulate what steps the appellees could have taken to prevent his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment on its conclusion that: (1) the tenants had no control over the apartment to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious. We affirm, although on different grounds.

A property owner filed a complaint against her neighbor and the municipality seeking to enforce a local zoning ordinance. The trial court dismissed the property owner’s claims against the municipality. Among other things, the court ruled that mandamus was not available because the property owner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. It also determined that the municipality retained immunity for the tortious acts alleged in the complaint. On appeal, the property owner argues that (1) Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2) authorized her to bring a mandamus action to abate the zoning violation without exercising administrative remedies and (2) the complaint contained sufficient allegations of negligent supervision to withstand a motion to dismiss. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal.

The 2025 Dispute Resolution Forum will take place virtually on May 14 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT. The program will feature sessions tailored to both lawyers and mediators, with topics including Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the federal space and mass arbitrations. The forum will conclude with an ethics course. Speakers from the ADR profession will lead the discussions. For more information and to register, visit the TBA website.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) raided the Memphis office of Butler Snow, which was tasked with investigating a complaint by former Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) Lieutenant Garet Davidson, The Tennessean reports. In a 61-page complaint, Davidson alleged that high-ranking officials within the department collaborated with state lawmakers to strip Community Oversight Boards of much of their power, including their ability to obtain public records prior to the closure of an officer complaint. In May 2024, Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell asked the firm to investigate the allegations. The raid on the law firm follows a September search of Davidson’s home, during which his attorney expressed concern that documents protected by attorney-client privilege may have been seized. TBI said any information related to the investigation would need to come from the court clerk's office, noting that the primary topic in the search warrant on Davidson’s home was related to the Community Review Board. Board members Monday said they learned of the raid through Davidson’s attorney and had not received any updates about the investigation since it began. A spokesperson for O'Connell’s office said the mayor has no role in the investigation and declined to comment on the raid.

Law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale are suing the Trump administration over executive orders that sanctioned the firms for their pro bono work and ties to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election. The lawsuits, filed today in a federal court in Washington, seek to block an order issued by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, which directed federal agencies to terminate contracts with companies that are clients of the firm and suspend the security clearances of its lawyers, Bloomberg Law reports. The executive orders target the firms due to their connections with attorneys who were part of Mueller's team. Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said late today that he is inclined to grant WilmerHale a restraining order in the matter. In related news, Skadden reached an agreement with the Trump administration to avoid an executive order targeting the law firm. The firm commits to providing at least $100 million in pro bono work for causes the Trump administration supports, to funding five fellows and to merit-based hiring and retention, and it will not deny representation to disenfranchised groups.