Question: If a county board of education receives funding for capital improvements from a municipality situated within the county, will the municipal legislative body be required to comply with state maintenance-of-effort obligations in its budget for subsequent years for the county board of education?

Opinion: Likely not. Tennessee’s maintenance-of-effort obligations only apply to local education agencies (LEAs) and the specific governmental entities required to fund the LEAs. Furthermore, maintenance-of-effort obligations likely do not apply to capital improvements.

Question: Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 5-1-202(c) apply to the offices of sheriff, register, county clerk, assessor of property, and trustee in Shelby County?

Opinion: Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-202(c) likely does not govern Shelby County’s current offices because the Shelby County Charter explicitly replaced “constitutional county officers” with “county charter officers.”

A news item in yesterday's issue of TBA Today inadvertently omitted the docket number to be cited when filing a comment about a proposed amendment to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 10.1. Comments should be submitted by July 26 and should reference docket number ADM2024-00922. Comments may be emailed to Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner or mailed to 100 Supreme Court Building, 401 7th Ave. N., Nashville, TN 37219.

Back by popular demand, the TBA is returning to Cuba Feb. 6-10, 2025! This uniquely designed program will explore Cuba’s rich and varied cultural heritage and feature local scholars, attorneys and entrepreneurs, all while providing six hours of CLE credit. Activities include an Ernest Hemingway tour, tour of Cuba’s classic cars, visit to the Museum of Cuban Art and more! Get trip details and instructions for registering.

The Tennessee Supreme Court today conditioned reinstatement of Davidson County lawyer Wendy Sue O’Neill on her completion of continuing legal education requirements. O’Neill petitioned the court for reinstatement on June 20. The court indicated that if the requirements are not met by Aug. 12, then the reinstatement petition will be dismissed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court in partnership with Legal Aid of East Tennessee, the Tennessee Alliance of Legal Services (TALS) and the Knoxville Bar Association (KBA) will hold a minority-owned business advice legal clinic on July 18 from 4-6 p.m. EDT. The event will take place at the Knoxville Area Urban League, 1514 East 5th Ave., Knoxville 37917 and pre-registration is required. View a flyer for the clinic.

Defendant, Hollie Whipple, pled guilty to especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault in connection with her perpetration of a home invasion in Fayette County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration at 100% service rate. She argues on appeal that her sentence is excessive and the trial court erred in denying probation. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Denver Christian Smith, was convicted by a Washington County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, attempted second degree murder, and attempted carjacking. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014) (subsequently amended) (first degree murder), 39-13-210 (2014) (subsequently amended) (second degree murder), 39-13-404 (2018) (carjacking), 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt). On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police and (2) no reasonable trier of fact could find that the Defendant failed to establish his insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Terrance Holliday, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by denying his motion for recusal and by finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a case that had placed significant restrictions on government officials’ ability to communicate with social media companies regarding their content-moderation policies, NPR reports. In a 6 to 3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court reversed a lower court ruling on the ground those challenging the interactions lacked standing. The case arose from the Biden administration’s efforts to address the spread of false information around certain issues including COVID-19 vaccines and foreign interference in elections. The court did not decide the question of what precisely constitutes permissible contacts between executive branch officials and social media companies. SCOTUSblog has more on the case.