The Tennessee Supreme Court has clarified standards for determining when a trial court may consider a prisoner's petition to consider newly discovered evidence. Under Tennessee law, the petition, an error coram nobis petition, must be filed within one year after conviction. If not filed in that timeframe, the petition may only be considered if it presents newly discovered evidence that clearly and convincingly shows the defendant did not commit the crime of which they were convicted. The case stems from Thomas Clardy's 2007 conviction and life sentence for his role in a Davidson County shooting that left one person dead and two others wounded. Today's decision reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and affirmed the post-conviction court’s dismissal of Clardy’s petition, finding that the presented evidence was not a valid basis to extend the one-year time limit. The decision was authored by Chief Justice Holly Kirby. Justice Jeff Bivins concurred in the court’s judgment but wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justice Sharon G. Lee.

The investigation into an attempted foreclosure sale of Graceland will continue under federal law enforcement after the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office conducted an initial probe and determined the matter was best suited for federal review. “We have faith in our federal partners and know they will handle this appropriately," director of communications for the Tennessee Attorney General's Office Amy Lannom Wilhite said in a statement. In May, Naussany Investments filed three foreclosure notices against the historic Memphis property, but the effort was halted by Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins. Someone associated with the company eventually claimed publicly that had it dropped the case and announced it had been operating a scam. The Commercial Appeal recaps the situation.

In 2020, the Petitioner, Ronnie Dale Whitener, pleaded guilty to one count of the sale of and one count of the possession of less than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, as well as one count of theft and one count of being a felon in possession of a handgun. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years of incarceration. In March 2023, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which is not included in the record. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Petitioner appeals. After review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

Petitioner, John David Smartt, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to prepare him to testify and failing to object to testimony concerning a recorded phone call between the victim (“J.S.”)1 and Petitioner. Following our review of the entire record, oral arguments, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

This is an appeal from a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint for race discrimination for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

In the latest move to oust Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy, state Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, has established a hotline for Memphians to call and share their experiences dealing with the local prosecutor. According to Local Memphis, Taylor said that if any of the information received is relevant, it “will be shared with the legal counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in the ouster resolution.” Earlier this month, Taylor said he plans to file a resolution immediately following the November election that would require Mulroy’s removal.

The plaintiff filed a health care liability action without a certificate of good faith. When the defendant moved to dismiss, the plaintiff asserted that the certificate was unnecessary because the common knowledge exception applied. He also contended that his noncompliance should be excused based on the defendant’s failure to timely provide medical records and/or for extraordinary cause. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments and dismissed the action with prejudice. We affirm.

In this parental termination case, the paternal grandparents filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her four children, alleging several grounds for termination. The trial court found that one ground for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother appeals. We affirm the trial court’s finding that the termination ground of abandonment by wanton disregard pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv)(c) has been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

The trial court entered a permanent parenting plan in 2014 that governed the parties’ custody arrangement for nine years. In 2022, the child’s father petitioned the juvenile court for a modification of the parenting plan. During the pendency of the modification petition, he also filed a motion for a restraining order to prevent the child’s mother from removing the parties’ daughter from his custody, which was granted. After a hearing on the modification petition, the court found a material change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification and that modification of the custody arrangement was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

This appeal concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. After a fire loss, the insured brought a breach of contract claim against her insurer. The insurer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the insured was not entitled to coverage for additional living expenses because she did not have an insurable interest in the property and that the insured’s contents coverage claim was precluded under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. The insured appeals. We reverse and remand.