Just a few spots remain to travel to Ireland with the TBA in May. The Law & Culture in Ireland CLE program will take place May 7-13. Two travel options are available: a four-night trip to Dublin and a six-night trip to Dublin and Belfast. In conjunction with CLE Abroad, travelers will engage with local experts, academics, officials and change makers who will offer in-depth commentary on the EU and UK legal-political systems, economics, environmental justice, history and religion. In Dublin, the group also will explore ancient castles, visit landmarks, museums and notable legal institutions, and sample local cuisine. In Belfast, travelers will learn about the region's unique political history, the Good Friday Agreement, ongoing reconciliation efforts and the peace process. Add on trips to the West Coast and Cliffs of Moher also are available. View a brochure here.

In addition to the opportunity to view the first episode of Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s history series in Chattanooga, a free watch party is scheduled for the National Museum of African American Music in Nashville. The event will take place Monday from 6-9 p.m. CST at the museum, located at 510 Broadway, Nashville 37203. A panel discussion will follow the screening. Sponsored by the museum and Nashville Public Radio, the event will feature the first installment of a four-part series that takes a deep dive into the origin story of Black spirituality through sermon and song. RSVP here.

The Napier-Looby Bar Association (NLBA) has a number of programs and events scheduled throughout the month in honor of Black History Month. These include the inaugural NLBA Day on the Hill on Feb. 20, a program for pre-law students on Feb. 21 and a program on banned books on Feb. 27. The Day on the Hill will include a discussion with state Sen. Rameush Akbari, D-Memphis, attending committee meetings and experiencing a mock legislative session. Sign up here to participate or email napierlooby@gmail.com with any questions. In addition, the Napier-Looby Bar Foundation will hold its 17th Annual Barristers’ Banquet and Awards Program on Feb. 22 at 14 Tenn in Nashville. The reception, which will take place before the banquet, will honor the late Judge Richard Dinkins. Tickets are available for purchase. Questions about the event can be directed to napierloobybarfoundation@gmail.com.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Caudle appeals the grant of summary judgment to his employer in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) case, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for attempting to report unlawful employment practices. We REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

The Defendant, Ginny Elizabeth Parker, was convicted following a bench trial of five counts of forgery, for which she received an effective six-year sentence to serve. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her forgery convictions, specifically regarding whether she acted without authorization; (2) the trial court shifted the burden of service of medical records pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-122(c) from the State to the Defendant; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted proof of a PayPal account that was linked to the victims’ bank account; (4) she is entitled to relief based on cumulative error; and (5) her sentence is grossly disproportionate to her offenses, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Christopher Bolden, of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of a speedy trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance of his case from that of his co-defendant; (3) the trial court erred in “curtailing [Defendant’s] questions in jury selection”; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s request to cross-examine the victim about “potential bias” related to cases that the State dismissed against the victim while Defendant awaited trial; (5) the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s prior conviction for robbery “without engaging in the required analysis”; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask questions about “an irrelevant and prejudicial rap music video”; (7) the trial court erred by refusing to fully bifurcate a charged count of convicted felon in possession of a firearm from all other counts; and (8) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s judgment of conviction.

The mother in this action filed for divorce and sought to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ son. Following settlement of all issues aside from the matters of parenting time and child support, the trial court designated the mother primary residential parent and allowed her to move back to her home state. The father appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant filed this declaratory judgment action against his sister, seeking to enforce a contract concerning property owned by the siblings’ parents at their deaths. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the contract was unenforceable, as there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake of fact. The trial court further found that a conveyance of real property was barred by the statute of frauds. Because Appellant has failed to supply this Court with a transcript or statement of the evidence presented at trial, we must affirm the trial court’s finding that there was no meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake.

The Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday upheld 11 convictions against David Eady, which stemmed from a string of robberies that occurred in Nashville in November 2017. The court reversed a 12th conviction and called for a new trial on that charge, holding that the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever the offense. The defendant had sought to disqualify the Davidson County District Attorney’s office from prosecuting him because Glenn Funk had represented him in a different case in 1989. The trial, appellate and supreme court rejected that argument. The Supreme Court did, however, overturn the two lower courts in determining that one of the charges should have been tried separately. Read more about the ruling in State v. David Wayne Eady.

This is an appeal from two orders entered by the trial court in this post-divorce action. In the first order, the trial court found the mother guilty on three counts of criminal contempt, upon a petition filed by the father, for scheduling and taking the parties’ minor child to two doctor’s appointments and a walk-in clinic in violation of the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The parenting plan granted to the father exclusive decision-making authority over all non-emergency medical decisions for the children. In the second order, the trial court sua sponte modified the parties’ parenting plan, granting the father “tie-breaking authority” to schedule non-school-related extracurricular activities during the mother’s co-parenting time on the condition that if the mother did not agree to a particular activity, the father would pay for and provide transportation to the activities. Neither party had filed a petition seeking to modify the parenting plan. The mother appeals this modification on the grounds that no material change in circumstance existed to justify modification of the parenting plan and argues further that the modification was not in the best interest of the children because it would likely create more disputes between the parties going forward. With regard to the criminal contempt determinations, the mother argues on appeal that her actions in scheduling the two doctor’s visits were not “willful” as required for a finding of criminal contempt and that her action in taking the child to the walk-in clinic was precipitated by a medical emergency, a situation over which the parenting plan did not grant the father exclusive control. Upon thorough review, we discern no reversible error in the trial court’s determination that the mother was guilty of three counts of criminal contempt for violating the permanent parenting plan and accordingly affirm that order in its entirety. Regarding the second order, we find as a threshold matter that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the parties’ parenting plan in the absence of a petition to modify or motion for relief from judgment. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order modifying the parties’ permanent parenting plan.