Plaintiffs Marvin Cotton and Anthony Legion spent nearly twenty years in prison for murder convictions and sentences that were vacated in 2020. In the years following their convictions, evidence came to light suggesting that key witness testimony was fabricated, other material evidence was withheld that would have undermined this testimony, and that Defendants, Detroit Police Department Investigator Donald Hughes and Sergeant Walter Bates, were involved in such misconduct. Cotton and Legion brought suit, contending that their constitutional and statutory rights were violated in three ways: first, by Bates’s and Hughes’s withholding of favorable evidence that would have undermined the testimony of the State’s two key witnesses at trial, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); second, by Hughes’s fabrication of evidence and testimony that led to the initiation of charges against Cotton and Legion and their continued detention, giving rise to federal and state malicious prosecution claims; and third, by Bates’s fabrication of key witness testimony, giving rise to a federal fabrication of evidence claim. Bates and Hughes moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing primarily that they are entitled to qualified or state statutory immunity. The district court denied their motion in part and granted it in part, and they appealed. Because we do not have interlocutory jurisdiction over several aspects of this appeal, we DISMISS some claims. For those claims that we may review on the merits, we AFFIRM.

A restaurant based in Williamson County sued a restaurant based in Rutherford County in Williamson County Chancery Court over the use of the name Jasmine. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of venue, and the plaintiff amended the complaint, including allegations that the defendant provided services in Williamson County, advertised in Williamson County, and caused customer confusion and economic harm in Williamson County. The chancery court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding the fact that the plaintiff alleged economic harm in Williamson County was not sufficient to establish venue. We reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, which affirmed the judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims awarding death benefits. On June 22, 2023, Employee, a professional truck driver, was stopped by a deputy sheriff after the officer observed pieces of inetal falling out of Employee's trailer. During this stop, Employee suffered a heart attack and died on scene. Employee's wife filed a petition for benefit determination, and the case ultimately proceeded to a hearing where the parties disputed causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims ("Trial Court") awarded benefits, finding that Employee's wife had shown to a reasonable degree of rnedical certainty that the June 22, 2023 work incident contributed more than fifty percent to Employee's heart attack and death when considering all causes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("Appeals Board") affirmed. Employer has appealed and the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm.

A plaintiff sued a physician and the physician’s practice, alleging the physician performed a biopsy during a medical office visit without the plaintiff’s consent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement in the Health Care Liability Act. Because the court also determined that the action was time- barred, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. We conclude that the plaintiff’s claim relates to the provision of, or failure to provide, health care services. So we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with the Health Care Liability Act. But because we conclude that the complaint does not clearly show that it was filed more than one year after the plaintiff discovered the injury, we modify the dismissal to a dismissal without prejudice.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Higgs, Jr., of rape of a child, sexual battery by an authority figure, and incest, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Nashville Bar Association’s Diversity Committee is joining with the Tennessee Bar Association and the Stonewall Bar Association to walk in Nashville’s Pride Parade on June 27. The parade starts at 10 a.m. and is expected to run until 1 p.m. CDT. RSVP to participate. The lineup number will posted on the NBA website closer to the event. Thank you to Husch Blackwell and Spencer Fane for sponsoring the event. For more information about the parade, including parade rules and map, visit www.nashvillepride.org.

This appeal stems from a trial court judge’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to recuse. Petitioner filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to recuse.

The Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Scott, pled guilty in separate cases to one count of second degree murder and one count of reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of nineteen years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post- conviction relief alleging that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered and that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal requires us to determine whether the Tennessee trial court’s orders on telephone visitation and fees remain justiciable in light of the Colorado permanent custody order. Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s grant of Appellee/maternal aunt and uncle’s motion for telephone visits with the minor children. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Because the custody of the children was adjudicated by the Colorado court, Appellant’s issues regarding telephone visitation are moot. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s claims for abusive civil action and attorney’s fees and costs. Affirmed.

Defendant, Michael Anthony Huerta, was indicted for three counts of first degree murder and pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder. Defendant agreed to be sentenced as a Range II offender with the length of the sentence to be determined at a sentencing hearing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve thirty-eight years at 100 percent release eligibility. On appeal, Defendant challenges his sentence as excessive and argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. Because Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal.