The Trial Court Vacancy Commission met in Jonesborough to select nominees for a vacancy in the 1st Judicial District Criminal Court. After holding a public hearing and conducting public interviews, the commission selected three lawyers: Blountville attorney Tessa Nichole Lunceford, Erwin lawyer Robert Mitchell Manuel and Jonesborough lawyer Lawrence Scott Shults. The candidate selected will fill a vacancy created by the appointment of Judge Stacy Street to the appellate bench. The 1st Judicial District covers Carter, Johnson, Unicoi and Washington counties. Learn more about the candidates. 

TBA's Litigation Section recently hosted Perspectives from the Bench, a discussion with Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Jeff Bivins and Nashville School of Law Dean William Koch, who served on the Supreme Court from 2007-2014. Moderated by section members Hunter Branstetter and Todd Presnell, the panel discussed each justice's path to the bench, paying particular attention to the fact that the path is not always linear. Bivins and Koch encouraged attendees to be open to new opportunities and to embrace stepping outside their comfort zones. The group also discussed the importance of mentors, the manner in which the justices interact, the importance of the Rule of Law in society and more. See photos from the event.

This year’s TBA LGBT Forum, set for June 26, will feature a session with Tennessee’s first transgender elected official, Olivia Hill, who was voted as a council member at-large for the Metropolitan Council Office of Nashville and Davidson County in 2023. Hill has long served as a community leader, educating the public about the difficulties faced by women and the LGBTQ+ community. Hill was recently recognized as the Advocate of the Year by the Tennessee Pride Chamber. Other topics at the forum include constitutional protections, Chiles v. Salazar and the consequences of conversion therapy. The first 10 registrants will receive a reserved seat on Nashville’s Big Drag Bus for a two-hour tour of the city with LGBT Section leadership. Learn more and register here.

TBA YLD Middle Tennessee Governor Alix Rogers was recently named an "ABA Member Who Inspires" for her work on the TBA YLD Rural Judicial Fellowship (RJF) program. In addition to her role as governor, Rogers serves as the co-chair of the RJF program with Judge Zack Walden, is vice chair of the TBA Mentoring Committee and is the TBA ABA YLD representative. Read more in this profile in the ABA Journal.

Following a bench trial, Deviest Patton (“Appellant”) was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court ordered Appellant to be diagnosed and evaluated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303(a)(1). Upon completion of the evaluation, the State filed a complaint for judicial commitment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered Appellant to be judicially committed. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by ordering judicial hospitalization. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Defendant, James Andrew Paige, appeals from his convictions for three counts of rape, for which he is serving an eleven-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) admitting the victim’s hearsay statements; and (3) failing to inquire into defense counsel’s unintentional contact with a juror or declare a mistrial. Defendant also avers that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to relief. We affirm.

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of a commercial property insurance policy and whether the insured has stated sufficient facts to invoke coverage. The insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured’s claimed losses. The insured filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy provided coverage and asserting a breach of contract claim. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. After interpreting the policy, we determine that the insured failed to invoke coverage, and we reverse the trial court’s contrary finding. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim for a declaratory judgment. Because the pleadings had not closed when the trial court ruled on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The circuit court determined that two grounds for termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but concluded that the petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The petitioners appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s decision.

This appeal arises out of a health care liability claim. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee-defendant. The appellant-plaintiff appeals the trial court’s acceptance of two of defendant’s expert witnesses. Upon diligent review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s causation expert witness to testify about his interpretation of a diagnostic image when his opinion about that image had not been properly disclosed as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We also conclude that this error more probably than not affected the judgment. We further conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s standard-of-care expert witness to testify despite not satisfying the locality rule contained in the Health Care Liability Act. However, we conclude that this error did not more probably than not affect the judgment. We vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.

The father of the minor child appeals the termination of his parental rights. The paternal aunt and uncle, who sought custody of the minor child, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene. We affirm both decisions.