Tennessee Attorney General (AG) Jonathan Skrmetti and a bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general issued follow-up letters to nine voice service providers indicating it appears they continue to be in violation of state and federal laws by routing allegedly unlawful robocalls across their networks. The letters provide information about the work of the Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force and analyses of each provider’s illegal or suspicious robocall traffic. The letters also warn providers that if they fail to act to cease transmitting illegal call traffic, the states may pursue enforcement actions. A press release from the AG’s office notes that one such enforcement action already is being pursued against Avid Telecom.

Two large law firms have reached preemptive agreements with the Trump administration to avoid similar actions taken against other firms this spring. The terms of the deals were described in social media posts from the president. Bloomberg Law reports that Milbank will spend $100 million on pro bono services, avoid what the president characterized as “illegal DEI discrimination,” represent clients regardless of political views and include partners with diverse political ideologies on its pro bono committee. Willkie Farr & Gallagher agreed to spend $100 million in pro bono work and affirm its commitment to “merit-based hiring, promotion and retention” and not engage “in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” the president said. The Associated Press has more on that agreement. Earlier this spring, the administration began issuing executive orders targeting law firms, beginning with Covington & Burling. One targeting Paul Weiss was revoked after that firm agreed to spend $40 million in pro bono services for mutually agreed projects, renounce partisanship in hiring and choosing clients, and use merit-based employment practices. Three others, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, have sued and won temporary restraining orders pausing parts of those orders. The ABA Journal has more on those cases.

The Petitioner, Vana Mustafa, appeals from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his amended petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that, although his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was litigated in his motion for new trial and on direct appeal, he is nonetheless entitled to post-conviction relief based on new grounds of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. In addition, he argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to include these new grounds on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Larry E. McKee, appeals his Bradley County conviction for theft of property valued at more than $1,000, but less than $2,500. He contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by (1) prohibiting Defendant's trial counsel from cross-examining two witnesses as to the manner in which the landlord of the burglarized property received rent payments from the tenants, (2) refusing to alow trial counsel to explain the relevancy of said line of questioning, and (3) threatening to hold the trial counsel ni contempt for continuing to ask the witnesses about such payment methods after the trial court ruled them irrelevant. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Christopher David Hodge, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was filed approximately twenty years after his conviction for second degree murder. Because the evidence that Petitioner claims is newly discovered does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent of the underlying crime for which he was convicted, he is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Petitioner, Darrel Hochhalter, who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for convictions of six counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of rape, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Richard Brock Hill, a former Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), brought an action for defamation against the State regarding statements made in connection with a sexual harassment investigation that resulted in the termination of his employment. The Claims Commission dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In reaching this conclusion, the Claims Commission analyzed the potentially defamatory statements and concluded that each statement was time-barred and/or failed as to an essential element of a defamation claim. Regarding statements contained in an “Investigation Summary Memorandum,” the Claims Commission also concluded that Mr. Hill’s defamation claim failed because the document was prepared by a Deputy Commissioner and was, accordingly, protected by absolute executive privilege. We conclude that Mr. Hill adequately alleged defamation such that dismissal of his claim was error and that the existent record and filings do not support a conclusion that, as a matter of law, absolute executive privilege protects the statements contained in the Investigation Summary Memorandum. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this post-divorce action, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of certain property. Because the trial court’s order contains conflicting findings, we vacate and remand.

After discovering that her neighbors had built a home on rural property that she owned, the property owner brought an ejectment action to remove them. The neighbors asserted an affirmative defense based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-103, which protects against ejectment if the defendant can show adverse possession for seven years. Following a trial, the trial court found that the neighbors had proven adverse possession and set a boundary line of the possessed area, drawing upon an exhibit produced by a surveyor. Thepropertyownerassertsthattheboundarydeterminedbythetrialcourtwas too expansive and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The neighbors assert that the trial court drew the boundary line in a manner too restrictive, failing to encapsulate the entirety of the area they actually possessed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Bath Fitter Tennessee, Inc. (“Bath Fitter”), appeals the denial of its motion to submit its contract dispute with the homeowner to arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The parties executed a written contract for the installation of a new shower for the homeowner, the parts for which were manufactured in Canada. Both parties signed the contract on the front page of the two-page agreement where the signature lines were provided; however, neither party signed or initialed the arbitration provision that appeared on the back of the contract. Although not explicitly stated in its order, it appears that the trial court denied arbitration based upon the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (“TUAA”), which, at the time of contracting, required that arbitration clauses in residential construction contracts be separately signed or initialed. It is undisputed that the materials installed by Bath Fitter were manufactured in Canada; thus, the transaction involves interstate commerce. For that reason, the FAA applies. Because the FAA does not require signatures or initials to indicate approval of arbitration clauses and preempts conflicting state laws that invalidate otherwise valid arbitration agreements, we reverse and remand with instructions to submit the contract dispute to arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stay proceedings until arbitration is complete.