Appellants, Rose Sawmill, Inc. and Shiloh Golf Course, Inc., have appealed an order of the Hardin County Chancery Court that was entered on September 14, 2023. We determine that the September 14, 2023 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Appellant/Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and on its finding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. Because Appellee abandoned the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, we reverse the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on that ground. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Appellant’s parental rights on all remaining grounds and on its finding that termination of Appellant’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

For the week of February 12, 2024 - February 16, 2024

A new report on the state’s juvenile criminal justice system from Disability Rights Tennessee and the Youth Law Center offers suggestions for preventing abuse inside detention facilities and setting kids up for success after they are released. WPLN reports that the recommendations are based on interviews with youth at the Wilder Youth Development Center. The report emphasizes the importance of reducing barriers between kids in custody and their families, given that phone time is limited, and some facilities have not allowed in-person visits to resume since the pandemic. The research found that most kids in detention facilities came into contact with the criminal justice system following some kind of crisis, and recommends improving access to resources and services such as health care or housing for those leaving a facility. Finally, it recommends establishing independent, third-party oversight of juvenile detention facilities.

The TBA’s International Law Forum will take place May 17 in Nashville. Save the date and watch the course registration page for more updates.

The Tennessee Supreme Court last week held that an arbitration agreement signed by a power of attorney as part of the paperwork for admittance to an assisted living facility was not a health care decision because it was optional and not required for admission. The court also concluded that the next of kin in the wrongful-death suit filed is bound by the arbitration agreement. In 2007, Granville Williams Jr. executed a durable power of attorney naming Karen Sams as his attorney-in-fact, giving Sams authority to act for Williams in “all claims and litigation matters” but not health care decisions. In 2020, Williams was admitted to Azalea Court, an assisted-living facility, and Sams completed the admission forms, including an arbitration agreement not required for admission. After Williams died, his son brought a wrongful-death lawsuit against two corporations that managed Azalea Court. Read more about the case, the majority opinion and dissenting opinions from Chief Justice Holly Kirby and Justice Sharon Lee.

The Memphis Bar Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Memphis Bar Association, has announced that Vincent Miraglia will serve as the 2024 board president. Miraglia has served on the board since 2019, most recently as vice president. Miraglia is an associate general counsel and chief legal ethics officer at Sylvamo. Prior to his role there, Miraglia served as chief counsel of information technology and global citizenship at International Paper and was president of the International Paper Foundation. He has more than 20 years of experience in corporate law, litigation, sustainability, labor and employment law, and technology law. He earned his law degree in 1995 from The Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law.

Alexander Ivy pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Ivy’s Sentencing Guidelines range upon finding that Ivy’s prior conviction for aggravated robbery under Ohio law was a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines. We hold that a conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under Ohio Revised Code § 2911.01(A)(1), without further information that the aggravated-robbery conviction is predicated on a particular underlying theft offense, is not a crime of violence. We thus vacate Ivy’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.

This appeal involves a decision by the Town of Louisville Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) that was upheld on review by the Blount County Circuit Court (“trial court”). At its May 5, 2020 hearing, the BZA granted appellee William Mattison’s request for a variance to allow him to construct an accessory, non-attached garage on his improved real property, which structure would purportedly exceed the height limit set by town ordinance. The appellants, Frank and Tina Reed, who own property adjacent to Mattison’s property and who had opposed Mattison’s request for a variance, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court on July 5, 2022, seeking review of the BZA’s decision. The trial court conducted hearings on the Reeds’ petition in January and February 2023. On Feb. 27, 2023, the trial court entered a final order affirming the BZA’s decision to grant a variance to Mattison. The trial court found that there was a rational basis for the BZA’s decision, which was supported by material evidence, and that the BZA had acted within its scope of authority and discretion. The Reeds timely appealed. Determining that there existed no material evidence of any particular characteristic of the real property warranting the grant of a variance, we reverse the trial court’s judgment affirming the BZA’s decision and vacate the BZA’s grant of a variance to Mattison as illegal and outside the BZA’s authority.

This appeal concerns juror misconduct. Chayce Collier (“Chayce”), a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, Kendall Collier (“Plaintiff”), sued Periclis Roussis M.D. (“Dr. Roussis”), Fort Sanders Perinatal Center and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“the Hospital”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability in Chayce’s delivery. A major issue at trial was whether Dr. Roussis fell below the standard of care by failing to administer epinephrine to Plaintiff when she had an anaphylactic reaction during labor. The jury found for Defendants. However, it emerged that a juror had gone home and looked at the warning on an epipen which said that epinephrine should only be used when the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. The juror shared this information with the rest of the jury. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court first granted and then denied. Plaintiff appeals. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b), jurors may not be asked what effect, if any, that extraneous information had on them. Instead, courts look to the extraneous information itself to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that it altered the verdict. We hold that there is a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information shared with the jury in this case altered the verdict, and Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and thereby abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.