The TBA’s 36th Annual Health Law Forum kicked off yesterday in Franklin with a welcome from TBA President Ed Lanquist Jr. The two-day event is the premier health law program in the state, providing essential insights from health law providers, practitioners and regulators. Watch for a full report from the forum in Monday's issue of TBA Today. Lanquist spoke to the group about the opportunity to engage around policy issues that are important to the practice of law in Tennessee. He encouraged those in attendance to connect with TBA's Grassroots Advocacy efforts. One of the primary government affairs issues TBA remains committed to is improving delivery of legal services for indigent clients. The TBA is focused both on securing adequate resources to compensate the lawyers who do this important work and investing in new approaches to improve the indigent representation system in a way that benefits attorneys, the larger justice system and the public.

A three-judge panel, made up of Nashville Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal, 10th Judicial District Judge Sandra Donaghy and 25th Judicial District Chancellor Kasey Culbreath, on Thursday issued a ruling specifying certain conditions that fall under an exception for medical emergencies in Tennessee's law prohibiting abortion, reports the Tennessean. The ruling also blocks the state from taking disciplinary action against physicians for performing medically necessary abortions covered by the exceptions, which include previable preterm premature rupture of membranes and fatal fetal diagnoses that lead to maternal health conditions. The panel heard arguments in April on whether to issue the temporary injunction blocking the state's abortion ban for women who are suffering severe pregnancy complications or facing cases of lethal fetal conditions.

The Defendant, Billy D. Woodard, Jr., appeals the Wilson County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the original five-year sentence for his theft conviction in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement (1) by relying on grounds not included in the probation violation warrant; and (2) by failing to consider any other punishment or alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Gene A. Hoskins, Jr., appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and requiring him to serve the original three-year sentence for his aggravated assault conviction in confinement. The Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement (1) by failing to consider the consequence of the revocation as a separate discretionary decision, and (2) by failing to consider the interests of justice. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A bank obtained a money judgment in South Carolina in 2010. The judgment debtor moved to North Carolina, and the bank domesticated the South Carolina judgment in North Carolina, a state that treats enrolled judgments as new North Carolina judgments. The judgment debtor moved to Tennessee, and in 2023, the bank filed a petition to enroll the North Carolina judgment in Tennessee. The judgment debtor objected, arguing that the original South Carolina judgment had expired. The bank responded that it was not seeking to enroll the South Carolina judgment, but instead the North Carolina judgment. The trial court enrolled the North Carolina judgment. The judgment debtor appeals. We affirm.

The Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”) granted the petition of Janice Peters-Rowe (“Petitioner”) for a conservatorship over her husband, Charles Rowe (“Respondent”). Respondent’s daughter from a previous marriage, Dawn Rowe (“Daughter”), filed an intervening petition. Daughter claimed that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction, arguing that Respondent had lived his entire life in New York until recently and that Respondent had not established residency in Tennessee. The Trial Court found that it had jurisdiction over the matter; that the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent was valid, giving Petitioner priority for appointment as conservator; and that it was in Respondent’s best interest that Petitioner be appointed as his conservator. Daughter appealed. Given that Respondent did not have the mental capacity to change his domicile at the time of his arrival in Tennessee, we conclude that the Trial Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and accordingly vacate the Trial Court’s judgment.

This is an appeal from a final order entered on June 6, 2024. According to the appellant, the notice of appeal was mailed to this Court on July 3, 2024, but the notice never arrived at the Appellate Court Clerk’s Office. The appellant provided a tracking number that was allegedly used to mail the notice of appeal, but the tracking information does not demonstrate that the notice was sent via certified mail pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 20 during the thirty-day appeal period. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to two children. The trial court determined that the mother had abandoned the children by willful failure to make reasonable payments toward the support of the children and ruled that it was in the children’s best interests for the mother’s rights to be terminated. Because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the ground of abandonment by failure to support and that clear and convincing evidence exists to support that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Buck Orrison from TBA's Member Insurance Solutions sat down with TBA’s Communications Coordinator Azya Thornton and answered members' questions regarding group health insurance in a recorded webinar. Enrollment for TBA's group health insurance is open now through Dec. 13.

The University of Memphis Law Review will host its 2025 symposium "The Ripple Effect: Examining the Supreme Court's Impact on the Public's Confidence in the Judicial Branch" on Feb. 21 at the law school. The event will explore issues related to public trust in the courts, including judicial transparency and challenges practitioners face in adhering to changes in common law doctrine. For more information, contact Senior Symposium Editor Megan Stillwell at mnstllwl@memphis.edu.