The employee in this interlocutory appeal sustained a compensable low back injury. After a period of authorized medical care, the relationship between the employee and his authorized physician deteriorated. The employee requested a new panel of orthopedic physicians and a panel of neurosurgeons pursuant to a purported referral from the treating physician. The authorized physician then declined to see the employee again. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide a new panel of orthopedic specialists for selection of a new treating physician, but it declined to order a panel of neurosurgeons, finding that no referral was made. The employer has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Jayshawn Edward Williams, Defendant, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for the shooting death of Travis Brown in Knoxville. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a thirty-six-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the proof did not establish his identity and because he acted in self-defense. Because we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Vonda Star Smith, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Petitioner also argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) obtain a DNA expert, (2) object to a comment made by the trial court, (3) object to the State’s introduction of an undisclosed impeachment statement, and (4) call a corroborating witness. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Tyrome Cameron Ferguson, was charged by a Monroe County grand jury with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon relating to an alleged road-rage incident. On the first day of the Defendant’s trial, the trial court found that the State had violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and declared a mistrial. In a subsequent hearing, the trial court ordered the State to pay defense counsel $500 “as a contribution toward his attorney[’s] fees” as a sanction for its discovery violation. The Defendant’s charges were ultimately dismissed by agreement. The State thereafter filed both an application for extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 and a petition for common law writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s assessment of $500. We denied the State’s application for an extraordinary appeal but granted its petition for writ of certiorari. State v. Ferguson, No. E2025-00044-CCA-WR-CO (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 1, 2025) (Order). Finding that the trial court’s order violated the State of Tennessee’s sovereign immunity from suit, we grant certiorari and reverse and vacate the trial court’s order.

In 2023, a Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Demetruice Bennett, of assault, several offenses involving the possession of a weapon and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a Range II offender, to a total effective sentence of twenty years, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted a video showing that he possessed a firearm on a day different from the day upon which the indicted offenses occurred; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admissibility of the video; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions related to his possession of a firearm. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it is dismissed.

In this grandparent visitation action, the grandparents filed a contempt petition, alleging that the child’s father had violated provisions of a previously entered visitation order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered an oral ruling and found the father in contempt. Before the trial court’s entry of a written order regarding contempt, however, the father filed a motion seeking the trial court judge’s recusal. The trial court entered orders adjudicating the contempt charges and the father’s bond before entering a written order adjudicating the recusal issue. The trial court then entered orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. The father has appealed. Upon review, we determine that the trial court erred by entering further orders before entering an order adjudicating the recusal motion. We therefore vacate the trial court’s August 2023 bond orders and the August 2023 order regarding the second contempt petition, which were entered while the motion to recuse was pending. We reverse the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees to the grandparents. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

This is an appeal from a premises liability, slip-and-fall claim against the owner of a shopping center. The husband slipped and fell while trying to get into his vehicle at a shopping center owned by the defendant company. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

This is an attorney discipline case. Elliott J. Schuchardt was licensed to practice law in Tennessee in 2008. Beginning in 2019, several individuals reported Mr. Schuchardt to the Board of Professional Responsibility. These complaints detailed conduct that implicated the following rules of professional conduct (“RPC”): RPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a)–(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.7(a)(1) (Conflict of Interest), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.2 (Communication with a Person Represented by Counsel), 4.4(a)(1) (Respect for the Rights of Third Persons), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.2(a)(2) (Judicial and Legal Officials), 8.4(c) (Misconduct-Dishonesty/Fraud/Deceit/Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct-Administration of Justice). A Hearing Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Mr. Schuchardt violated these RPCs on forty-seven occasions and recommended disbarment. The Knox County Chancery Court affirmed. Mr. Schuchardt now asks us to reverse. Because ample evidence supports the decisions below, we affirm Mr. Schuchardt’s disbarment.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld permanent disbarment of Knox County attorney Elliott J. Schuchardt. Beginning in 2019, the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) received complaints of professional misconduct by Schuchardt, including failure to comply with local rules and submission of legally deficient filings. The BPR also found that Schuchardt refused to provide a former client with his file and made threats to members of the legal community and the disciplinary counsel. It  recommended disbarment. Schuchardt appealed to the Knox County Chancery Court, which affirmed the recommendation. Schuchardt then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s attorney-discipline system and the evidence supporting his disbarment. The court rejected the challenge, concluding that the lower court decisions were supported by substantial evidence. Schuchardt's actions were determined to violate Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)-(b), 1.5(b), 1.7(a)(1), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 4.2, 4.4(a)(1), 8.1(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). Read more in a press release or the opinion from the court.