This is an appeal from trial court proceedings in which a property owner sought to enjoin the City of Chattanooga from demolishing a condemned house. Because the property owner has since sold the property at issue to a third-party purchaser who is now renovating the property, the original property owner no longer has standing, and the issues he attempts to raise are moot. This appeal is dismissed.

The employee appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and dismissing the case. The employee, a resident of Oklahoma, reported two work-related injuries occurring in 2020 while he was employed by a trucking company based in Tennessee. The employee received medical treatment and retained an attorney in Oklahoma, who filed a First Notice of Claim for Compensation with the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Commission in December 2020. Subsequently, the employee’s Oklahoma claim was dismissed with prejudice in January 2022 because he did “not demonstrate an intent to pursue this claim.” In the meantime, the employee, acting in a self-represented capacity, filed petitions with the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation in July 2021, March 2022, and May 2023. After a period of discovery, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment based on Tennessee’s election of remedies doctrine. After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

This case involves termination of the parental rights of a biological father to his minor child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to support had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the trial court declined to find that termination of the father's rights was in the child's best interest and accordingly denied the termination petition. The petitioners have appealed. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the trial court erred in its determination concerning the best interest analysis. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of the termination petition, and we grant termination of the father's parental rights.

Tenant appeals the trial court’s determination that (1) he breached his lease by failing to pay water bills for several years and (2) the apartment complex did not breach the lease by bringing the underlying eviction proceedings. The apartment complex also appeals the trial court’s grant of only some of its attorney’s fees. Because we conclude that there was no meeting of the minds regarding the payment for water services, we reverse the trial court’s finding of a breach of contract. We further determine that Cadence is entitled to quantum meruit relief, and we remand for a determination of the reasonable value of the utilities used by the tenant. We also vacate the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and remand for the determination and calculation of those fees allowed.

Yanjun Xu, a Chinese citizen and member of China’s Ministry of State Security (an intelligence organization), was convicted of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and conspiracy to steal trade secrets from multiple aviation companies over a five-year period. Xu was also convicted of attempted economic espionage by theft or fraud and attempted No. 22-4020 United States v. Xu Page 2 theft of composite fan-blade technology from GE Aviation. Xu was sentenced to a combined 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Xu seeks to have the judgment vacated and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial. He argues that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 in the indictment as duplicitous, and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). In the alternative, Xu seeks to have his sentence vacated, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Defendant, Aaron Dean Whitman, was convicted by a Blount County jury of violating the sex offender registry, for which he received a sentence of 391 days’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to stipulate to his prior convictions, for which he was required to register as a sex offender. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of the named offenses for which Defendant was convicted; however, we determine that the error was harmless and affirm Defendant’s conviction.

The Defendant, Asata Lowe, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36 and Rule 36.1 motions for their failure to state colorable claims. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the motions because he stated colorable claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant, Joshua Adam Hill, on two counts of aggravated rape, one count of incest, and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, for which he was sentenced to an effective twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape and sexual battery by an authority figure and that the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury on the elements of those offenses. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant appeals from the Bedford County Circuit Court’s partial denial of his motion seeking resentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h). Upon our review of the oral arguments, applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Martinez Carter, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the revocation and disposition of the defendant’s probation.