Petitioner, Tracy D. Boyd, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions of three counts of impersonating a licensed professional, two counts of theft of property, and one count of forgery. He claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

In this condemnation action, the trial court entered an order of possession granting to the petitioner city two greenway easements and two construction easements over two tracts of land owned by the respondent corporation. In the order of possession, the court found that the city’s taking was for the public purpose of the city’s greenway project. The corporation filed two successive motions for summary judgment, claiming that because the taking was partially for a private purpose, it violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 21 of the Tennessee Constitution. The corporation averred that the order of possession required the city to construct parking spaces on one of the corporation’s tracts to replace parking spaces taken from the other tract and that this would yield only a private benefit. The corporation also asserted that the city had abandoned its taking by failing to construct the replacement parking despite the completion of the greenway. The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment, determining that the order of possession had not required the city to build replacement parking and that no abandonment had occurred. Following a jury trial regarding compensation, the trial court entered a judgment approving the jury’s monetary award to the corporation with prejudgment interest. The corporation has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We deny the corporation’s request for an award of costs and attorney’s fees on appeal.

This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Hamblen County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Janlynn B. (“Mother”) and Eric N. (“Father”) to their minor children Jaxon N. and Colton N. (“the Children,” collectively). Janice B. (“Foster Mother”) filed an intervening petition also seeking to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The Juvenile Court found in part that Mother failed to attend to the Children’s health needs, including Colton’s serious heart condition. Mother appeals.1 On appeal, Mother argues that the Juvenile Court did not make sufficient best interest findings and, even if it did, it erred in its analysis. We vacate the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan as the record contains only Mother’s third plan. Thus, we modify the Juvenile Court’s judgment to that extent. Otherwise, we find that each of the other grounds found by the Juvenile Court was proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further that the Juvenile Court made sufficient findings on best interest. We find, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm as modified.

A home health nurse was injured in an automobile accident while driving her vehicle in connection with her employment. She later sought uninsured motorist benefits under a business automobile liability policy issued to her employer. Arguing that the uninsured motorist coverage in the business policy did not apply to the employee’s accident, the insurance carrier moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the carrier’s motion. We conclude that the business policy unambiguously limited uninsured motorist coverage to specifically listed automobiles. Because the nurse’s vehicle was not listed, the uninsured motorist coverage in the business policy did not apply. We further conclude that this policy limitation does not contravene our uninsured motorist statutes. So we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

Holland & Knight LLP is relocating and has signed a lease for seven floors at Highwoods Properties’ Symphony Place tower, where it will anchor the office building. The law firm, which ranks as the second largest in Nashville, is moving from downtown’s Nashville City Center to Symphony Place — formerly known as the Pinnacle at Symphony Place — as the tower undergoes a major renovation, the Nashville Business Journal reports. Two of the building's largest tenants moved out at the start of the year. “We chose to stay in the heart of Nashville. We’re proud of Nashville. We’re excited to be in that area, and we’re particularly excited to literally watch the development of the East Bank,” said Matt Burnstein, executive partner of Holland & Knight’s Nashville office.

Save the date for TBA’s 2025 Federal Practice Forum, which will be held virtually on July 15. The program, which will offer essential and practical content for attorneys, will run from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT. More details about the program are coming soon. For updates and to register, visit the TBA website. Federal Practice Section members receive discounted registration. Not a section member? Join here.

Attendees of the 2025 TBA Convention won’t want to miss the TBA Young Lawyers Division's (YLD) CLE program “State of DEI in the Legal Profession” scheduled for June 13. The program will feature speakers James Crumlin, Casey Duhart, Paige Lyle and Kristen Walker as they explore how Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts are evolving across law firms, corporate legal departments and higher education. The panel will cover key topics such as recruitment, retention, inclusive leadership and legal risk, offering practical insights and sparking open discussion about the shifting role of DEI in shaping legal strategy, client expectations and workplace culture. Register now to be part of this important conversation.

Nashville Mayor Freddie O’Connell signaled Friday that the Metro government is no longer actively pursuing the Fusus program, which was promoted as a way to give police easier access to private surveillance footage. A proposed contract with Fusus failed to gain Metro Council approval by one vote in December, but the council passed legislation in March to establish “guardrails” for a future agreement with Fusus or a similar product. According to the Nashville Banner, some council members supported the protections as a way to mitigate the risks of such a policy, while others were more hesitant. The administration, O’Connell said, is still having conversations with council members who are concerned about how such tools could be used to target immigrants and other marginalized communities.

Twenty three Vanderbilt University law students were recognized this month for completing the school's Pro Bono Pledge. The program requires students to complete at least 75 hours of pro bono legal work and community service during their law school career, including a minimum of 50 hours in law-related activities and 10 hours in Nashville. The group included three law school students who achieved the honor in both 2024 and 2025, and 14 members of the 2025 graduating class, four members of the 2026 class and two doctorate students who completed the pledge this year. Collectively, the students reported a total of 6,020 pro bono and community service hours through the program. Beth Cruz, assistant dean, and Martha Craig Daughtrey, director for public interest, announced that beginning this year, students who complete the pledge will receive a cord to wear at graduation. “We thank all students who completed the Pro Bono Pledge, and to everyone who engages in pro bono work, for helping to keep a vibrant culture of service thriving here in our law school community,” Cruz said in a press release.

Knox County lawyer Roger David Hyman received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on April 28. The court found that Hyman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 and 1.4 when he failed to promptly communicate with opposing counsel his client’s desire to withdraw from a divorce settlement. The court found that Hyman also failed to take any other action to protect his client’s interests, causing his client potential injury. Hyman executed a conditional guilty plea acknowledging his conduct violated the rules.